D&D General What is player agency to you?

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Relevant to the player's decision to take the background, sure (and if I expect it to come up rarely I will explain this in session 0), not relevant to the frequency of the features success.

 

[Oofta]

No it actually isn't. It's presented as it's own specific text, completely separate from the "work with your DM..." stuff (at least in D&D beyond). Like it's meant to be used regardless of the above.



The DM is the one deciding the context. If they want the feature to work within the context they set up, it can.

I'm just letting you know how I would handle it in my game.

Nobody in the City of Brass is going to care about some meaningless title. There's just no logical reason for it to work and I don't do stuff just because of a single sentence taken out of context of the rest of the descriptive text.

 

[TwoSix]

Nobody in the City of Brass is going to care about some meaningless title. There's just no logical reason for it to work and I don't do stuff just because of a single sentence taken out of context of the rest of the descriptive text.

I mean, that's the core of the difference between narrativist and simulationist processes, right there. The narrativist will bend the fiction as needed to allow for the player's granted ability to happen. The simulationist will bend the mechanic to make sure the setting's cohesion is maintained.

 

[Oofta]

I mean, that's the core of the difference between narrativist and simulationist processes, right there. The narrativist will bend the fiction as needed to allow for the player's granted ability to happen. The simulationist will bend the mechanic to make sure the setting's cohesion is maintained.

I don't disagree. As DM running a simulationist game* I'm going to take into consideration just how important the title is, how much the noble they're trying to see is impressed by the title along with other considerations.

A modern world equivalent would be something like saying the a political office holder can get an audience with other politicians. Which, sure, a mayor is more likely to get an audience with the governor of their state than Bubba who's the manager at the local Stop-and-Go. But just because you're on the city council of SmallTown USA, it doesn't mean you're going to get a meet-and-greet with North Korea's Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un.

If someone takes the noble family we'll discuss all of this before the first actual game session starts. Just like I'll discuss details about a contact for a criminal and so on. Nothing in the PHB is going to override world building and basic logic.

*well, sort of simulationist anyway. It's still D&D.

 

[bloodtide]

what other option do they suggest? If they find a way to teleport her out of there without going there, sure, but other than that…

Well, an example might be going to the capital city and negotiating for the princess release...where the players are just improving from thin air all of that. Or the players want to hire someone else to do it....and assume they will automatically do it and then come right back to the PCs.

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?

The most common reason I say no is the player(s) have a weak, half idea that would only work in a very dumb cartoon or such fiction.
Second is when the players put no effort or work into an idea. They just say "whatever" and want a Win Button.
Third is when the player makes a wild crazy assumption about something in the game world AND they want to game world reality altered to whatever they just said on a whim.
Fourth is when the player makes something they want to happen/not happen a "One Way" sort of thing...more 'bending reality' here.
Fifth is when the clueless player makes a clueless plan that simply will not work ever.

We could perhaps just agree that 5e's backgrounds are poorly thought out and explicated, and could do a much better job of spelling out what precisely they do.

Very True.

It's great to give players the idea that "backgrounds are cool", but they need more then a quick drive by of text.

This is where "Be a fan of the players..." comes in.

And this is where I have the problem. The Fan/Buddy DM.

The player just yaks on how they "know another rich noble who gives them free money". The Fan/Buddy DM just says "ok, " and the player just writes down any amount of their sheet.

As I am not a fan/buddy DM I's say, "nope, no free money for you", and the player will complain.

If someone takes the noble family we'll discuss all of this before the first actual game session starts. Just like I'll discuss details about a contact for a criminal and so on. Nothing in the PHB is going to override world building and basic logic.

I use the common sense that your only a "noble" in and around your home area...and mostly near by places that are part of the same society. But a lot of places don't recognize the nobility of your place. Plenty of places have no idea of "nobility" in their society and/or won't see the crazy murderhobo self insert player as any kind of "noble" person.

 

[Mort]

And this is where I have the problem. The Fan/Buddy DM.

The player just yaks on how they "know another rich noble who gives them free money". The Fan/Buddy DM just says "ok, " and the player just writes down any amount of their sheet.

As I am not a fan/buddy DM I's say, "nope, no free money for you", and the player will complain.

That's not what being a fan means.

It means making sure to put the PCs in fun/interesting situations that the players will have a blast - even if they fail or the PCs die.

It means allowing the PCs to utilize their cool abilities in interesting ways that have a visible impact on the campaign going forward - that sort of thing.

It has NOTHING to do with paving an easy path for the PCs or giving them free stuff just because they ask for it. As a matter of fact, that would actually be not being a fan - paving an easy path and monty hauling free stuff is (usually) not that fun or interesting.

Most rat bastard DMs are huge fans of the PCs. Even though, on the surface, it looks like they do everything possible to make the PCs lives as miserable as possible.

 

[mamba]

Well, an example might be going to the capital city and negotiating for the princess release...

with whom? the pirates? I would not expect those there. Also not sure the king needs the players to do that

Or the players want to hire someone else to do it....and assume they will automatically do it and then come right back to the PCs.

let them, 50% of the pay upfront, 50% upon delivery - only to never see those guys again

If they do not want to be the heroes, I suggest they buy a farm with the remaining 50% and work the fields

 

[pemerton]

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.

4e works with player-authored quests and magic item "wishlists". As far as I know neither is a part of 5e.

 

[soviet]

On the contrary, I think a lot of the issues are because some posters hear “your game features less player agency” as a pejorative.

Your post doesn't in any way contradict mine

 

[TwoSix]

Your post doesn't in any way contradict mine

To clarify, no one might be saying "greater agency games are better", but a lot of people hear that anyway.

So yea, more of an extrapolation of your post, not a contradiction.