D&D General What is player agency to you?

[pemerton]

A quest is just a general goal. That's it. A player stating they want to find their father's killer and bring them to justice. It's not the player dictating anything of any particular importance. Same with wishlists. It's still a wish list.

Here's the rules text that I read. To me, it doesn't seem to say what you say it says:

PHB p 258: Sometimes a quest is spelled out for you at the start of an adventure. . . . You can also, with your DM’s approval, create a quest for your character. Such a quest can tie into your character’s background. For instance, perhaps your mother is the person whose remains lie in the Fortress of the Iron Ring. Quests can also relate to individual goals, such as a ranger searching for a magic bow to wield. Individual quests give you a stake in a campaign’s unfolding story and give your DM ingredients to help develop that story.

DMG pp 103, 122, 125: Design quests so that they have a clear start, a clear goal, and clear consequences. Any quest should provide a ready answer for when the players ask, “What should we do now?” . . . Quests should focus on the story reasons for adventuring, not on the underlying basic actions of the game - killing monsters and acquiring treasure. “Defeat ten encounters of your level” isn’t a quest. It’s a recipe for advancing a level. Completing it is its own reward. “Make Harrows Pass safe for travelers” is a quest, even if the easiest way to accomplish it happens to be defeating ten encounters of the characters’ level. This quest is a story-based goal, and one that has at least the possibility of solution by other means. . . . You should allow and even encourage players to come up with their own quests that are tied to their individual goals or specific circumstances in the adventure. Evaluate the proposed quest and assign it a level. Remember to say yes as often as possible!

Completing quests earns rewards for the PCs. These rewards primarily take the form of treasure (both money and items) and experience points, but quests can also have less concrete rewards. Perhaps someone owes them a favor, they’ve earned the respect of an organization that might give them future quests, or they’ve established a contact who can provide them with important information or access.

The trickiest part of awarding treasure is determining what magic items to give out. Tailor these items to your party of characters. Remember that these are supposed to be items that excite the characters, items they want to use rather than sell or disenchant. If none of the characters in your 6th-level party uses a longbow, don’t put a 10th-level longbow in your dungeon as treasure.

A great way to make sure you give players magic items they’ll be excited about is to ask them for wish lists. At the start of each level, have each player write down a list of three to five items that they are intrigued by that are no more than four levels above their own level. You can choose treasure from those lists (making sure to place an item from a different character’s list each time), crossing the items off as the characters find them.​

A player-authored quest establishes a story-based goal, and appropriate elements of the shared fiction to support that goal - perhaps places, antagonists, background elements, etc. Player magic-item wishlists likewise establish elements of the shared fiction, though probably a bit more pedestrian ones. In both cases, these set constraints on what the GM does. The GM has to frame the quest, and has to provide the item via the treasure parcel system.

D&D is not a narrative game.

Ever? For anyone? So what was all that stuff in the 4e DMG2 about player-narrated vignettes and the like doing, then? Or the stuff about player-authored quests, and magic-item wishlists, that I've just quoted?

I think you are universalising what are merely your own preferences and approaches, which to me seem to be pretty close to mainstream late-80s and 90s D&D.

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 would add to this: cohesion as conceived by the referee. Because there are endless ways of having a coherent session in which a Pasha in the City of Brass will willingly meet with a high level D&D PC.

For fun, here's an actual play report of a meeting between high level 4e PCs and Yan-C-Bin:

The PCs erected a magic circle around the Mausoleum of the Raven Queen, in order to prevent anyone from entering it and potentially learning her true name (backstory here); then rested; then scried on the tarrasque, which they knew to have recently begun marauding in the mortal world, identifying its location and noting that it was being observed by maruts. They decided that, to return to the mortal world to confront the tarrasque they would first teleport to their abandoned Thundercloud Tower, and then take that with them through another conjured portal and fly it to where the tarrasque is.

<snip>

When the PCs step through the portal from their resting place to the top of the tower, they find that it is not where they left it - on the disintegrating 66th layer of the Abyss - but rather in the palace of Yan-C-Bin on the Elemental Chaos. This brought the PCs, and especially the chaos sorcerer, into discussion with the djinni who had retaken possession of the tower and were repurposing it for the coming Dusk War. Mechanically, this situation was resolved as a skill challenge.

Sirrajadt, the leader of the djinni, explained that the djinni were finally breaking free of the imprisonment they had suffered after fighting for their freedom the last time (ie with the primordials against the gods in the Dawn War), and were not going to be re-imprisoned or bound within the Lattice of Heaven, and hence were gearing up to fight again in the Dusk War. He further explained that only Yan-C-Bin (Prince of Evil Air Elementals) and the Elder Elemental Eye could lead them to victory in the Dusk War.

The PCs both asserted their power (eg the paladin pointed out that the reason the djinni have been released from their prisons is because the PCs killed Torog, the god of imprisonment), and denied the necessity for a coming Dusk War, denouncing warmongers on both sides (especially the Elder Elemental Eye, whom Sirrajadt was stating was the only being who could guarantee the Djinni their freedom) and announcing themselves as a "third way", committed to balancing the chaos against the heavens and ensuring the endurance of the mortal world.

Sirrajadt was insisting that the PCs accompany him to meet Yan-C-Bin, declaring that mercy would be shown to all but the sorcerer. (The reason for this is that the chaos sorcerer - who is a Primordial Adept and Resurgent Primordial - has long been a servant of Chan, the Queen of Good Air Elementals, who sided with the gods during the Dawn War and is resolutely opposed to the Prince of Evil Air Elementals; hence the sorcerer is a sworn enemy of Yan-C-Bin.) As the PCs continued to debate the point and explain their "third way" reasoning (mechanically, getting closer to success in the skill challenge), Sirrajadt - sufficiently unsettled by their claims - invited them all to resolve the matter in conversation with Yan-C-Bin, who moreso than him would be able to explain the situation. The PCs therefore went to meet Yan-C-Bin himself, as guests and not as prisoners - not even the sorcerer.

Yan-C-Bin greeted them, but mocked the sorcerer and his service to Chan. There was some back and forth, and some of the same points were made. Then the PC fighter/cleric Eternal Defender, who has recently taken up the divine portfolio of imprisonment (which position became vacant after the PCs killed Torog), spoke. Both in the fiction and at the table this was the pivotal moment. The player gave an impassioned and quite eloquent speech, which went for several minutes with his eyes locked on mine. (We tend to be quite a causal table as far as performance, in-character vs third person description of one's PC vs out-of-character goes.) He explained (in character) that he would personally see to it that no djinni would be unjustly imprisoned, if they now refrained from launching the Dusk War; but that if they acted rashly and unjustly they could look forward to imprisonment or enslavement forever.

The player rolled his Intimidate check (with a +2 bonus granted by me because of his speech, far more impassioned and "in character" than is typical for our pretty laid-back table) and succeeded. It didn't persuade Yan-C-Bin - his allegiance to the Elder Elemental Eye is not going to be swayed by a mere godling - but the players' goal wasn't to persaude Yan-C-Bin of the merits of their third way, but rather to avoid being imprisoned by him and to sway the djinni. Which is exacty what happened: this speech sufficiently impressed the djinni audience that Yan-C-Bin could not just ignore it, and hence he grudgingly acquiesced to the PCs' request, agreeing to let the PCs take the Thundercloud Tower and go and confront the tarrasque - but expressing doubt that they would realise their "third way", and with a final mocking remark that they would see for whom the maruts with the tarrasque were acting.

This also illustrates how D&D - at least 4e D&D - can be played in a manner that is high player agency.

 

[pemerton]

I could about as easily let it happen and deny any and all requests by the party, then we would not have this conversation, and yet the result is basically the same, so what does the insistence on the audience accomplish?

You have the exact same outcome and the exact same amount of agency denial, yet you are happy with one and complain about the other. I find my view more consistent

As a GM I wouldn't, by fiat, deny any and all requests. That is like just decreeing that the attack against the Orc misses. And as a player I wouldn't be happy. To me that sounds like terrible RPGing.

 

[mamba]

This is bizarre to me. The urchin ability clearly is not about super-speed! It's about knowing pathways that ordinary people don't use.

If every possible pathway were literally mapped out, then the urchin ability would make no sense.

they use paths that aren’t pathways, like climbing over walls, going over rooftops or in sewers, so I do not see them restricted by a city map that contains all streets

If I miss because the GM decides it makes no sense that I can hurt the Orc, then yes!

Which is what you are positing in relation to the Noble background ability.

if there is a good in-world reason to not be able to hit the orc, then I see no denial of agency here, same as for the audience

 

[soviet]

Action surge was used earlier as an example of something that always works.

But should it? It seems to me that the same logic being applied to the Noble background could apply to Action Surge. The text says that 'you can push yourself beyond your normal limits for a moment'.

But what if you are already past your normal limits? Can a DM say it doesn't work if you're exhausted? Poisoned??Frightened? If you've just stabilised from 0 HP? If you're subject to a spell like Slow or Ray of Enfeeblement? Energy drained? Magically aged? If the characters are in a different plane or a cursed city?

Note that I'm not asking whether the rules explicitly say yes or no to this. I'm asking if the GM can use their own judgement and veto a use of Action Surge for any of these reasons.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Action surge was used earlier as an example of something that always works.

But should it? It seems to me that the same logic being applied to the Noble background could apply to Action Surge. The text says that 'you can push yourself beyond your normal limits for a moment'.

But what if you are already past your normal limits? Can a DM say it doesn't work if you're exhausted? Poisoned??Frightened? If you've just stabilised from 0 HP? If you're subject to a spell like Slow or Ray of Enfeeblement? Energy drained? Magically aged? If the characters are in a different plane or a cursed city?

Note that I'm not asking whether the rules explicitly say yes or no to this. I'm asking if the GM can use their own judgement and veto a use of Action Surge for any of these reasons.

"I action surge."

"Your limbs explode because I need to make it clear I'm in charge here."

 

[Oofta]

Here's the rules text that I read. To me, it doesn't seem to say what you say it says:

PHB p 258: Sometimes a quest is spelled out for you at the start of an adventure. . . . You can also, with your DM’s approval, create a quest for your character. Such a quest can tie into your character’s background. For instance, perhaps your mother is the person whose remains lie in the Fortress of the Iron Ring. Quests can also relate to individual goals, such as a ranger searching for a magic bow to wield. Individual quests give you a stake in a campaign’s unfolding story and give your DM ingredients to help develop that story.​

​

DMG pp 103, 122, 125: Design quests so that they have a clear start, a clear goal, and clear consequences. Any quest should provide a ready answer for when the players ask, “What should we do now?” . . . Quests should focus on the story reasons for adventuring, not on the underlying basic actions of the game - killing monsters and acquiring treasure. “Defeat ten encounters of your level” isn’t a quest. It’s a recipe for advancing a level. Completing it is its own reward. “Make Harrows Pass safe for travelers” is a quest, even if the easiest way to accomplish it happens to be defeating ten encounters of the characters’ level. This quest is a story-based goal, and one that has at least the possibility of solution by other means. . . . You should allow and even encourage players to come up with their own quests that are tied to their individual goals or specific circumstances in the adventure. Evaluate the proposed quest and assign it a level. Remember to say yes as often as possible!​

​

Completing quests earns rewards for the PCs. These rewards primarily take the form of treasure (both money and items) and experience points, but quests can also have less concrete rewards. Perhaps someone owes them a favor, they’ve earned the respect of an organization that might give them future quests, or they’ve established a contact who can provide them with important information or access.​

​

The trickiest part of awarding treasure is determining what magic items to give out. Tailor these items to your party of characters. Remember that these are supposed to be items that excite the characters, items they want to use rather than sell or disenchant. If none of the characters in your 6th-level party uses a longbow, don’t put a 10th-level longbow in your dungeon as treasure.​

​

A great way to make sure you give players magic items they’ll be excited about is to ask them for wish lists. At the start of each level, have each player write down a list of three to five items that they are intrigued by that are no more than four levels above their own level. You can choose treasure from those lists (making sure to place an item from a different character’s list each time), crossing the items off as the characters find them.​

A player-authored quest establishes a story-based goal, and appropriate elements of the shared fiction to support that goal - perhaps places, antagonists, background elements, etc. Player magic-item wishlists likewise establish elements of the shared fiction, though probably a bit more pedestrian ones. In both cases, these set constraints on what the GM does. The GM has to frame the quest, and has to provide the item via the treasure parcel system.

Ever? For anyone? So what was all that stuff in the 4e DMG2 about player-narrated vignettes and the like doing, then? Or the stuff about player-authored quests, and magic-item wishlists, that I've just quoted?

I think you are universalising what are merely your own preferences and approaches, which to me seem to be pretty close to mainstream late-80s and 90s D&D.

I would add to this: cohesion as conceived by the referee. Because there are endless ways of having a coherent session in which a Pasha in the City of Brass will willingly meet with a high level D&D PC.

For fun, here's an actual play report of a meeting between high level 4e PCs and Yan-C-Bin:
This also illustrates how D&D - at least 4e D&D - can be played in a manner that is high player agency.

You seem to conflate player agency with the player subsuming the role of the DM. I don't, I see them as separate things.

One of the benefits of D&D is it's flexibility. I've always seen D&D as simulationist by default but of course you can do anything you want in your game.

 

[mamba]

To me, both abilities are essentially the same and both are between the player and the DM.

The Noble in question isn't some real 3rd party, they are a DM construct (just like the city)

the difference is that the city is not an actor and has no agency, a noble does

and the DM can EASILY comes up with a reason to or not to grant an audience.

yes, and he can just as easily grant it, so if one is denied, chances are there is a good reason for that

I still am not sure why you rail against not getting an audience in the name of agency, yet presumably are ok with getting one in which all requests are denied. How does that result in more agency?

 

[Oofta]

Action surge was used earlier as an example of something that always works.

But should it? It seems to me that the same logic being applied to the Noble background could apply to Action Surge. The text says that 'you can push yourself beyond your normal limits for a moment'.

But what if you are already past your normal limits? Can a DM say it doesn't work if you're exhausted? Poisoned??Frightened? If you've just stabilised from 0 HP? If you're subject to a spell like Slow or Ray of Enfeeblement? Energy drained? Magically aged? If the characters are in a different plane or a cursed city?

Note that I'm not asking whether the rules explicitly say yes or no to this. I'm asking if the GM can use their own judgement and veto a use of Action Surge for any of these reasons.

One is a class feature no different from the number of spell slots a wizard has the other is potentially altering the lore of the campaign world.

 

[mamba]

As a GM I wouldn't, by fiat, deny any and all requests. That is like just decreeing that the attack against the Orc misses. And as a player I wouldn't be happy. To me that sounds like terrible RPGing.

I did not say that this is how it regularly goes, but if there are good reasons for the noble acting that way, then I am not going to grant some random requests, just so the players can take something home

 

[mamba]

Note that I'm not asking whether the rules explicitly say yes or no to this. I'm asking if the GM can use their own judgement and veto a use of Action Surge for any of these reasons

veto a single one? I’d say no, ruling that in their game you cannot surge when exhausted more than 2 levels, sure