D&D General What is player agency to you?

[hawkeyefan]

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.

That's all fine... but what do you do when the two somehow come into conflict? That's why the background features are a good example... they involve the player deciding what happens.

So when DM prep and player agency are at odds, which do you go with?

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.

It seems reasonable, but why would they need a lot of time to come up with a ship and a captain?

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

Absolutely!

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?

I don't know if that would be necessary, but I think it's okay! The important thing is that the DM is responding to the player.

The use of the background feature is literally a player saying "hey, I'm interested in this". They not only chose it as a background, and so it's relevant to their character, but they've also invoked it in this instance of play. The DM taking this and building on it is honoring player agency. Taking the player's idea and building on it.

Letting the player's ideas direct play, not just disregarding them and going back to what the DM had planned.

 

[FrogReaver]

That's all fine... but what do you do when the two somehow come into conflict? That's why the background features are a good example... they involve the player deciding what happens.

So when DM prep and player agency are at odds, which do you go with?

Option number 3. DM prep and player agency are never at odds in a D&D game.

Player agency in D&D is derived from the DM's prep. Without that prep and extrapolation from it all that's left for the DM to make decisions on is Fiat. I agree with the assessment that a game where all DM decisions are Fiat leaves the players with no agency.

Perhaps an additional example would help. Let's say the DM has devised a special region in the game where game mechanics are altered. Let's say fire spells do double damage here and cold spells do half damage. Not a single D&D player is going to bat an eye that the DM has made a special region in the game where spells behave differently than their mechanics suggest. Like they may be initially surprised or curious, but not a single one is going to feel that by having that region that he has taken away their agency.

I'd suggest a region where the noble feature doesn't work or works differently is exactly the same kind of thing.

 

[pointofyou]

Option number 3. DM prep and player agency are never at odds in a D&D game.

Player agency in D&D is derived from the DM's prep. Without that prep and extrapolation from it all that's left for the DM to make decisions on is Fiat. I agree with the assessment that a game where all DM decisions are Fiat leaves the players with no agency.

Perhaps an additional example would help. Let's say the DM has devised a special region in the game where game mechanics are altered. Let's say fire spells do double damage here and cold spells do half damage. Not a single D&D player is going to bat an eye that the DM has made a special region in the game where spells behave differently than their mechanics suggest. Like they may be initially surprised or curious, but not a single one is going to feel that by having that region that he has taken away their agency.

I'd suggest a region where the noble feature doesn't work or works differently is exactly the same kind of thing.

GM prep and player agency needn't be at odds but that's not anything like their never being at odds.

How'd you feel about a region where Second Wind didn't work? Or where monks couldn't use ki/discipline?

 

[bloodtide]

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.

I find other things work much better.

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.

I find it much better to just say : "if you pull out your phone, you can just leave the game forever".

 

[pemerton]

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.

From the 4e PHB, pp 6-8:

D&D is a cooperative game in which you and your friends work together to complete each adventure and have fun. It’s a storytelling game where the only limit is your imagination. It’s a fantasy-adventure game, building on the traditions of the greatest fantasy stories of all time. In an adventure, you can attempt anything you can think of. Want to talk to the dragon instead of fighting it? Want to disguise yourself as an orc and sneak into the foul lair? Go ahead and give it a try. Your actions might work or they might fail spectacularly, but either way you’ve contributed to the unfolding story of the adventure and probably had fun along the way. . . .

The Dungeon Master presents the adventure and the challenges that the players try to overcome. Every D&D game needs a Dungeon Master - you can’t play without one.

The Dungeon Master has several functions in the game:

*Adventure Builder: The DM creates adventures (or selects premade adventures) for you and the other players to play through.

*Narrator: The DM sets the pace of the story and presents the various challenges and encounters the players must overcome.

*Monster Controller: The Dungeon Master controls the monsters and villains the player characters battle against, choosing their actions and rolling dice for their attacks.

*Referee: When it’s not clear what ought to happen next, the DM decides how to apply the rules and adjudicate the story.​

The Dungeon Master controls the monsters and villains in the adventure, but he isn’t your adversary. The DM’s job is to provide a framework for the whole group to enjoy an exciting adventure. That means challenging the player characters with interesting encounters and tests, keeping the game moving, and applying the rules fairly.​

This makes it clear that the DM frames the challenges and adjudicates the players declared actions. That's the core of the GM role in a lot of RPGs, including 4e D&D. It doesn't say that the DM is the creative force behind the game. And the DM's creation of adventures and framing of challenges can use all sorts of materials, including those provided by players via their player-authored quests and magic item wishlists.

 

[pemerton]

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

I didn't say there is a problem. I said that what you're describing is clearly relatively low in respect of player agency. If someone prefers lower agency play, because they prefer that the GM make most of the decisions about what happens next, then they won't have a problem!

 

[pemerton]

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?


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

I don't care if the GM's motive is to deny agency, or to preserve the integrity of the behind-the-scenes plotline they've invented.

What I do care about is that the GM is departing from the rules of play. I would probably leave that game.

 

[pemerton]

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?

I'm reporting what the rulebooks say. I quoted the relevant passages not too far upthread.

I don't know what WotC was thinking when they published their adventures (other than that they were hoping to make money!). As far as play techniques are concerned, I've got my own views on how to use prepared material in player-driven RPGing.

 

[pemerton]

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

And? Taken together, they constitute the rules of the game.

Since the game started, some players have always given suggestions.

The passage in the PHB that I quoted does not say that players can make suggestions. It says that players can establish quests, which are a technical concept within the game - story frameworks within which particular encounters are located. The DMG passage tells the GM to encourage their players to come up with these quests - that is, for players to establish the story frameworks for the play of the game.

The PHB suggestion is exactly how every prior D&D game worked

<snip>

The paragraph is nothing new

There is no equivalent of that paragraph in the Moldvay Basic rulebook, the AD&D or AD&D 2nd ed PHBs, or the 3E PHB.

This is no surprise for Moldvay or Gygax. Neither is talking about an approach to RPGing that even involves a story framework. Moldvay is rules for dungeon exploration. Gygax's PHB gives players advice for how to handle dungeon exploration, which absolutely takes for granted that the GM has already written up the map and key for a dungeon.

It's not surprise for AD&D 2nd ed either, which presupposes that the GM has sole control over story frameworks. The instructions to players in the early pages of the PHB emphasise providing characterisation in the context of the GM-directed adventure.

The absence from 3E I would regard as a legacy matter. If the 4e text on player-authored quests has an equivalent in the 5e PHB I'd be interested to see it posted.

not all players do that. And in fact, I would venture to say fewer do than don't.

And? All this tells us, which we already new, is that many RPG players do not want to exercise much agency in their play.

 

[pemerton]

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.

Are you aware of the rules for authoring and changing Beliefs in Burning Wheel?

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).

What are the other two Beliefs? What are the Instincts? What are the traits? The relationships? The affiliations and reputations?

There are many ways for signalling player priorities in Burning Wheel, that are generated in different ways both when a PC is first built, as a PC is played, during the periodic Trait Votes, etc.

So no, I don't really agree with you. One Belief doesn't tell me everything there is not know as to what this PC is about, or what their player's priorities are for them.

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.

Just a suggestion: given that you had no reason to suppose that it was a pathological or degenerate instance of play, you could have asked questions like "What Belief or other player-authored priority for the character made the Falcon's Claw salient?", instead of making assumptions about those with no evidence base other than your own conjecture, and then telling me that my play departed from the principles of the game.