D&D General What is player agency to you?

[Mort]

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

What about acknowledging when an idea or the execution of an idea was good, or particularly good? For players to continue to engage they need to recognize that their ideas (and which ideas) are resonating with the DM. It's not always obvious and letting them actually know works wonders.

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.

How do the players know to change if they get no feedback on what they are doing well or poorly?

You make it sound like the only feedback they get is that if they survived then they're doing alright.

And you expect the players to self reflect and change "to be better ...." But are completely unwilling to reflect and possibly change to meet them? That's a tough sell.

 

[Scott Christian]

That's fine! But clearly in an instance like that, you're saying DM prep is more important than player agency. Or else you'd adapt your prep to find a way to make the player's idea work.

My take would be DM prep is important because it helps include player agency. It is not more important, nor is it removing, it is helping the DM to make sure it is there.

I tend to believe that there tends to be more than one way to achieve consistency and common sense. It usually only takes a few moments to work something out.

I tend to agree with this. A busy port, an old sailor friend that needs to pay off a debt to the PC, etc. One can always come up with alternatives. But that doesn't mean a DM needs to have it on the spot. The DM could say no to the sailor. And yet, at the next session come up with a scoundrel character that will give them passage or an old friend with a debt that will do it because he owes the PC. Nothing is wrong with a DM needing time to work things out. Just like there is nothing wrong with a player suggesting their feature should work.

As for trust, we could just as easily say that the DM should trust their players.

I 100% agree. Each time I DM, I do trust my players. A lot. I think that is what helps reciprocate the trust back.

 

[mamba]

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

not the point

this was not meant to imply abuse of the feature, but a visit among friends

Further, your scenario isn't really what we've been discussing.

we were discussing an audience being denied, no context. Also, I asked a question for a second case that to me is closer to what we were discussing (the no context makes it hard to say definitively )

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).

you are far less trusting than I am (in this scenario)

 

[bloodtide]

What about acknowledging when an idea or the execution of an idea was good, or particularly good? For players to continue to engage they need to recognize that their ideas (and which ideas) are resonating with the DM. It's not always obvious and letting them actually know works wonders.

Of course, all the time for the good players.

How do the players know to change if they get no feedback on what they are doing well or poorly?

Don't get feed back? Maybe you can't tell by my posts....but I give a LOT of negative feedback to the bad players.

You make it sound like the only feedback they get is that of they survived then they're doing alright.

That would be more of a complement.

And you expect the players to self reflect and change "to be better ...." But are completely unwilling to reflect and possibly change to meet them? That's a tough sell.

I don't really agree with the idea that "everyone is always wrong" and "everyone should always change".

 

[Mort]

we were discussing an audience being denied, no context. Also, I asked a question for a second case that to me is closer to what we were discussing (the no context makes it hard to say definitively )

But in your example the audience wasn't denied, it was granted multiple times (more than the feature requires. If THAT'S the context of denial, I'm not even in disagreement. The feature says grant AN audience not grant multiple.

 

[mamba]

But in your example the audience wasn't denied, it was granted multiple times (more than the feature requires

and then I asked, what if you were denied the audience with a noble house you meet for the first time, would that make a difference in your perception?

So you are basically saying ‘I get it, I can be a handful, the noble family probably just had enough of me, there is nothing going on’… that was not an option I considered

 

[Mort]

Of course, all the time for the good players.

Players become better with feedback. Players rarely start "good" playing just like dming takes practice.

Don't get feed back? Maybe you can't tell by my posts....but I give a LOT of negative feedback to the bad players.

Negative feedback, I'm not sure I understand the term. Do you mean constructive criticism?

That would be more of a complement.

I don't really agree with the idea that "everyone is always wrong" and "everyone should always change".

Not always right is very, very far from always wrong.

 

[Scott Christian]

Nobody, really? You can't think of one reason why someone in the City of Brass might take an interest in a noble from some backwater prime requesting an audience?

I mean... no one in the City of Brass is simply curious? None of them could be bored and play along with malicious intent? None could be bound by some ancient pact to honor such requests? None could possibly recognize that a group of mortals who managed to make their way to the City of Brass may be far from typical, and may be worth investigating a bit?

Not one of them has ever had need for a party of adventurers? Whoever heard of such a thing?!?

Not to butt in, but I'm going to...

The example being given is a player declares they need secure an audience with the noble of Brass City? This is a place that has 3,000 efreet fanatical guards. It has an army that dwarfs the largest Faerun armies. So, if the nobles don't care to see the noble of Saltmarsh, or instead say they will see him, but that they need to wait 58 years, then that seems logical.

Could the DM come up with a reason and get them in on the spot. Sure. But what that instantly does is deteriorate the setting. And that is something no one ever talks about. Sure, your character has this privilege. But that privilege should not damage the story's setting. A noble that needs to placate 3,000 fanatical efreets or 100,000 efreet soldiers might not care about the Saltmarsh noble.

But here is a question: What if the noble sent word that the group had to go retrieve this for him prior to talking to them. Would that be okay?

 

[Mort]

and then I asked, what if you were denied the audience with a noble house you meet for the first time, would that make a difference in your perception?

Ideally, I would hope you understood the feature and would then investigate the issue, because i'd assume there was one.

Unless I kept getting denied by various nobles and investigation never led anywhere productive. Then I'd eventually just assume you didn't respect the feature and stop bothering with it (and pick a different background next time).

 

[Mort]

But here is a question: What if the noble sent word that the group had to go retrieve this for him prior to talking to them. Would that be okay?

The feature generated a quest? That's certainly a win.

And that's not a no, that's a "yes, but first..." Which, IMO, shouldn't be the norm - but then neither is requesting an audience with a noble from the city of brass.

Generating an interesting "yes" can work too