D&D General What is player agency to you?

[pemerton]

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

If the players are making "random" requests, then to me that suggests that something is already going wrong with the game. The players aren't engaged by the fiction.

But putting that to one side, it seems obvious that you are describing an approach to lower-player-agency play: the good reasons are ones that the GM came up with (as part of their setting design, or their adjudication, or whatever) and the player is dependent on a grant from the GM.

 

[pemerton]

You seem to conflate player agency with the player subsuming the role of the DM.

You seem to make assumptions about "the role of the DM" that are not borne out by the game rules.

 

[Oofta]

You seem to make assumptions about "the role of the DM" that are not borne out by the game rules.

The Dungeon Master (DM) is the creative force behind a D&D game. The DM creates a world for the other players to explore, and also creates and runs adventures that drive the story.

 

[mamba]

If the players are making "random" requests, then to me that suggests that something is already going wrong with the game. The players aren't engaged by the fiction.

you take it too literal, the requests are not random and I could also choose which ones to grant with intention. The point is that if there is a good reason to not grant any, then none will be granted

But putting that to one side, it seems obvious that you are describing an approach to lower-player-agency play: the good reasons are ones that the GM came up with (as part of their setting design, or their adjudication, or whatever) and the player is dependent on a grant from the GM.

the GM runs the world, they are good reasons within the world / campaign (at least to the GM), I see no problem there, unless you think your GM is acting erratic

 

[Mort]

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

The "good reason" is solely in the DMs head and all the player sees is the DM, yet again, saying no to a granted ability.

Sure, it's all about trust, the players need to trust that the DM isn't simply out to screw them. But that's earned.

And the DM also needs to trust that the players aren't just making random hair brained requests, but are actively trying to engage with the fiction.

Which they will stop doing if the DM constantly nopes them for what he assures are "good reasons" (but, of course, doesn't show WHY they are good - that's not the players province).

And, I know, you say it's not constantly it's just THIS INSTANCE. But I've seen it quite often that the DM is so inclined to say no they don't even realize it's constant, they really think it's just a case by case basis.

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?

Because the ability as presented is at least met. And the DM can then SHOW the noble being an unmoving villain, or whatever. As opposed to not even granting the players the right to see it.

But also, things are fluid and players are creative. The DM may well go into the encounter expecting the noble to deny all requests but the PCs through great roleplay, lucky rolls or even unscrupulous magic change that outcome. It won't happen if the DM just says no from the getgo.

 

[mamba]

The "good reason" is solely in the DMs head and all the player sees is the DM, yet again, saying no to a granted ability

ok, let’s say the campaign is already going for a year and you visited the neighboring nobles 5 or 6 times already. They were always friendly and your two houses had good relations.

Out of the blue the players decide to visit them again, but the guard at the castle gate turns you away and says ‘Lord Mountebank does not wish to see you’.

Do you think

A) the DM became a jerk, he only does this to deny me agency

B) there must be a reason for this, we should investigate

If you answered B, why do you go with A when it is a noble house you encounter for the first time?

If you still think B, then what is the problem?

Sure, it's all about trust, the players need to trust that the DM isn't simply out to screw them. But that's earned.

is your default position that he is out to screw you?

 

[bloodtide]

I mean, your players sound like they don't get any encouragement, do they?

Like to I say "oh your such a good player!" randomly? Or say "Wow, you sure did roll that d20 great!" randomly? Then no.

I mean, if I was always getting shot down with any idea I came up with, and forced along the railroad, I'm gonna give up coming up with any ideas.

The way I see it, it should be much more the player doing a bit of self reflection to figure out what THEY are doing wrong. And then change.

Maybe it's you who should change?

Can't really see why.

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

In there altered reality the pirates have a royal ambassador or something in the royal court.

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

I'm harsh...they take 200% of the fee up front...save the princess AND take all the credit. And the characters are just poor....

 

[Mort]

ok, let’s say the campaign is already going for a year and you visited the neighboring nobles 5 or 6 times already. They were always friendly and your two houses had good relations.

Out of the blue the players decide to visit them again, but the guard at the castle gate turns you away and says ‘Lord Mountebank does not wish to see you’.

The audience doesn't need to be immediate and it would be presumptuous if the players to assume it has to be.

If it really is "out of the blue..." Then the DM is more than entitled to investigate further and throw in a few road blocks.

Further, your scenario isn't really what we've been discussing. If the player REALLY is abusing the ability that is different. I could well see a DM saying you had your granted audience, it's doesn't mean SIX if them!

setting limits is NOT the same as turning down flat.

Do you think

A) the DM became a jerk, he only does this to deny me agency

B) there must be a reason for this, we should investigate

If you answered B, why do you go with A when it is a noble house you encounter for the first time?

If there is a reason with a payoff that's completely different than just a flat denial. If the DM frames it in such a way that the players have reason to investigate and it moves the game forward, then it's not really a denial, it's a plot point.

What that means in practice is that a DM really shouldn't pull the move initially (say with a new group that doesn't know him). But with a group where trust is established? Then it will work, though best if there is some kind of payoff vs. a dead end, even here.

 

[Scott Christian]

If the player isn't down with this, that's just punishing them for having the background.

How is actively being punished for making a choice 'agency'.

And DON'T say 'consequences'. Because that's not consequences.

Who says they weren't down with it?

D&D is a cooperative story-telling game. The DM often uses catalysts such as these to put things into motion. If they aren't down with it, then they don't have to use the adventure. The group can choose a different path that doesn't involve that character. On top of that, if the player came to the DM and said they didn't like that - then fine, retcon. Or, while their PC was doing a different adventure, the parents came back and scolded the son, and everything is as it was.

That is at the most extreme end. And I mean an extremely extreme end. Because your example isn't reality. If a player chooses a background for their character and doesn't want it to be in any part of their story - why choose it? Specifically for the feature and skill. Ok. No biggie. But if that's the case, then surely they don't care about it being used in the first place. Again, it seems a ridiculous thing to say that a DM that includes a character's backstory in the campaign is punishment.

 

[Scott Christian]

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

How can you say this when there are dozens, no probably over a hundred, official WotC published adventures for 4e - ones the players did not author?