D&D General What is player agency to you?

[bloodtide]

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

I agree for the good players.

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

Um...no. More like your worst nightmare of a nightmare.....

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

Not too often.

 

[Scott Christian]

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!

Notice how these are in two different places... in two different books. The second is a book literally for the DM via title.

The PHB suggestion is exactly how every prior D&D game worked and how 5e works. Since the game started, some players have always given suggestions. Some players have always had a backstory that needed a quest to complete its story arc. Some players have always come up with names of their hometown, the ship they sailed on, their parents. Some players have always come up with even more detail, like the design of their family castle or level of their teacher-wizard. Some players have added even more detail exactly who the antagonist of their youth or backstory was.

The paragraph is nothing new, nor is it different than 5e. It's simply not all players do that. And in fact, I would venture to say fewer do than don't.

 

[Mort]

Um...no. More like your worst nightmare of a nightmare.....

You mean you insult and/or belittle them?

Not too often.

Agree to disagree on that one

 

[Scott Christian]

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

Ok. Win. And you are most definitely correct, I don't think it would be the norm either. Most of the time that feature would just be granted. But, we are talking outside the norm here, which is the only reason the DM would say no in the first place.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't know how much familiarity you have with Burning Wheel, either via reading or play.

Suppose that the player, at the start of the session, wrote a Belief for his PC: "I will recover the Falcon's Claw from my old tower." (And for all that I can recall, maybe that's what happened.)

See, I agree with you that if the Belief was anything similar to what you describe here then totally no player fiat by bringing it up when reaching the tower.

Do you agree with me that if the Belief was something closer to, I want to reconcile with my brother (no mention of the 'Falcon Claw' in the Belief that the player introducing the 'Falcon Claw' upon coming to the tower would be player fiat? (Even saying 'that would be player fiat but wouldn't happen when playing by the rules of Burning Wheel' would be a fine answer).

Just a suggestion, but if in the initial example you had simply said I'm not positive what the Beliefs for the character in my example were (it was a long time ago!) but I'm fairly certain they would have included something about the 'Falcon's Claw' in them, then neither of us would have had to jump through all these extra posts - I would have simply said okay then in that case it's not player fiat and asked a follow up question to confirm that such Beliefs like that are normally required for a player to make assertions like this. Simple and done.

 

[bloodtide]

You mean you insult and/or belittle them?

Yes.....or worse.

Agree to disagree on that one

Well, to use an easy example: I think everyone should pay attention during the game, and I myself will pay attention 100% of the time.

Player Bob thinks it's Ok to sit there and not pay attention at all as he is on his phone. And thinks it's fine to leave the room for a half hour to "take a call" and thinks it's fine to then come back and disrupt the game with "hey guys whats going on in the game?"

So...I'm NEVER going to budge on playing attention during the game. So no "two equal sides here".

 

[Mort]

Yes.....or worse.

I find that gentle (but firm) commentary works much better. Even I was young I was caustically sarcastic - it may have been a bit fun but it didn't leasd anywhere good. I learned better.

Well, to use an easy example: I think everyone should pay attention during the game, and I myself will pay attention 100% of the time.

Player Bob thinks it's Ok to sit there and not pay attention at all as he is on his phone. And thinks it's fine to leave the room for a half hour to "take a call" and thinks it's fine to then come back and disrupt the game with "hey guys whats going on in the game?"

So...I'm NEVER going to budge on playing attention during the game. So no "two equal sides here".

A no electronics except for game use and emergencies, stated up front works well. And a reminder that it'll be more enjoyable if their paying attention.

 

[hawkeyefan]

no, the player took the action, they just did not get the desired outcome.

If you attack an orc and miss, is that denying agency?
If you get the audience but all your proposals and requests are denied, is that denying agency? Is that denying less agency than not having the audience in the first place?

It depends on why the attack missed. If the player rolled, and didn't equal or exceed its AC, then no. If the DM just decided that the attack didn't work, or that the character was unable to attack... then, yeah.

With the audience, I'd expect some Diplomacy rolls, perhaps some Insight rolls to identify one of the NPCs Bonds, Ideals, Flaws, or Traits, maybe Bluff or Intimidate if nothing else worked. Supposedly there's a whole pillar of play about this stuff.

The player has the right to an attempt, not to a guaranteed outcome.

It depends on the action in question.

I am not aware that I need to read my comment in another way

I’d say the setting’s internal logic trumps a player’s wish to insist on something happening.

That's fine... it's saying the same thing, just in a slightly different way.

D&D is not a narrative game. The DM is not forced to change their concept of the world, how the powers that be function, what kind of hierarchy exists.

I didn't say D&D was a narrative game. I'm keeping all my comments limited to 5e D&D only in this discussion.

When I run D&D, I don't hold my prep above all. It's a choice, not a requirement.

If that means I'm not the DM for you, I'm not going to lose any sleep over it.

That's fine!

To build on a point that @hawkeyefan made: imagine that someone picked up the 5e rulebook, read the Noble background feature, read the Action Surge class feature, and - based on the similarity of wording - just decided to treat them the same.

It's interesting how people interpret similar verbiage in different ways. It'd be interesting to see how many abilities that are seen as automatic are worded and compare them, and then see how the game would work if we applied them all consistently.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

How is being granted an audience with a noble changing the lore of the campaign world?

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

Encouragement. Help people understand what you expect in play, and what you might consider good play. It'd be more productive than not telling them and then getting mad at them for not understanding.

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.

Why would they think anything they're doing is wrong?

Can't really see why.

So you expect self-reflection by others, but won't do any yourself? Nice.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Who says they weren't down with it?

That would be the point of using the qualifier 'if'.