D&D General What is player agency to you?

[EzekielRaiden]

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

That's...a pretty bold claim. Particularly given that one noteworthy form of DM prep is railroading (or, if you prefer, "prep written with the expectation that players follow the railroad.")

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.

DM prep is another form of fiat. What gave you the idea it was somehow not the DM authoritatively decreeing what simply is true?

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.

Really? So, for example, a player who has built a Silver Pyromancer, a character whose focus is doing damage with fire spells, isn't going to have any reaction whatsoever to being told, "oh, actually, you're in a space where fire spells do half damage now." I find this difficult to believe; I think this player, and a variety of other players, would respond rather strongly to things of this nature. I think you are severely over-stating your case.

Rather, in order to achieve what you describe--players simply accepting a thing without much comment or criticism--the DM needs to build up the reason why there is or should be a place where fire spells deal half damage. Instead of simply declaring that it is true, or perhaps not declaring it and leaving it as a(n unpleasant) surprise for later, the DM has to metaphorically show their work. Now, they don't have to shout it from the rooftops and give a full Vaudeville show, but either this quirk needs to be called out openly, or the players need a clear and fair opportunity to find out (even if it just ends up being that they didn't do so), or, preferably, a trail of diegetic breadcrumbs leads to the reveal at least a little bit in advance.

From there, I assert that players can do something very similar: openly discuss OOC what one's goal is, or (preferably) diegetically attempt things (see below on the success issue) within the world that would contribute to what you want to happen actually happening. Just as with the DM above, the player is constrained; neither one can simply fiat declare whatever they like, but rather, they must do work, building up from what is known, perhaps filling in some blanks along the way if such filling-in is reasonable and context-appropriate.

That doesn't mean there aren't differences. Many things DMs can do freely, while players, if they can do them at all, usually must spend resources or take risks. But somethings also involve DMs effectively spending resources. Encounter-building is exactly that--and it is expected that the GM will not simply create unwinnable or trivial encounters, but will actually "use" the XP budget (as 4e put it) in a way that is reasonable and context-appropriate.

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

And I, instead, would suggest that most instances of that are simply DM fiat, without actually giving the players a fair shake--which is pretty harmful to agency. When related stuff was brought up (IIRC it was Folk Hero back then, but the issue is the same), this whole "no, that doesn't apply here" was quite clearly sprung upon the player, rather than being the natural result of the DM building up to such a breakdown occurring.

Also, I no longer know where the post was, but somewhere upthread, you made the argument that, effectively, if the player does not succeed (not cannot succeed, does not succeed), then their agency has been denied. This I flatly reject. Agency means having a sincere opportunity: the action attempted is agreed to be plausible by all parties (and no party denies plausibility without fairly-established justification), success is genuinely possible, the relative probabilities are reasonable for the situation and sufficiently communicated to all parties, and any adjudication that results from the attempt (success or failure) is reasonable both within the rules of play and within the fictional situation.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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


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?

Because that way, the rules widget in the book is followed, and the player technically gets what they want.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

I would argue against the assumption that D&D is a cooperative storytelling game. Many people play it that way, but for me it's playing a character in an imaginary world outside of your PC, and experiencing it and making choices. Story is emergent, not the goal of play.

 

[CreamCloud0]

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.

i presume it's the fact that second wind has numbered limited charges of use, like in spells vs skills, because you're expending a 'tangible' resource it gives more weight to alowing the action, whereas with skills and backgrounds their functionally infinite use means people are more inclined to override any given attempt because they can simply 'try again later', even if background abilities are often quite niche applicability.

 

[pemerton]

Rogue, Cunning Action: Starting at 2nd level, your quick thinking and agility allow you to move and act quickly. You can take a bonus action on each of your turns in combat. This action can be used only to take the Dash, Disengage, or Hide action.

Noble, Position of Privilege: Thanks to your noble birth, people are inclined to think the best of you. You are welcome in high society, and people assume you have the right to be wherever you are. The common folk make every effort to accommodate you and avoid your displeasure, and other people of high birth treat you as a member of the same social sphere. You can secure an audience with a local noble if you need to.

Both abilities seem to me to have the same basic presentation and syntax. Both use the same verb of permission - can, in both cases addressed to the player as "you".

It could be argued that the "you" in Cunning Action addresses the player - who is the one who takes turns, declares actions etc - whereas the "you" in Position of Privilege addresses the character - who is the one who secures audiences with nobles. But I don't think that would change anything, as the player is presumably the one who decides whether or not their character needs to secure an audience (that being an issue of character desire) and hence is the one who establishes that preliminary bit of fiction which then renders the character able to secure the audience they need.

 

[FrogReaver]

That's...a pretty bold claim. Particularly given that one noteworthy form of DM prep is railroading (or, if you prefer, "prep written with the expectation that players follow the railroad.")

That’s not what railroading is. Railroading isn’t the GM expecting players to follow the linear story, it’s forcing them to do so.

DM prep is another form of fiat. What gave you the idea it was somehow not the DM authoritatively decreeing what simply is true?

I agree that fiat is required for a starting point. Which is what prep is in D&D. Or player backstory is. Or initially setting character Beliefs is. Not sure the relevance of this insight?

Really? So, for example, a player who has built a Silver Pyromancer, a character whose focus is doing damage with fire spells, isn't going to have any reaction whatsoever to being told, "oh, actually, you're in a space where fire spells do half damage now." I find this difficult to believe; I think this player, and a variety of other players, would respond rather strongly to things of this nature. I think you are severely over-stating your case.

I wouldn’t expect him to bat an eye if he was told you can’t cast spells here at all either.

Rather, in order to achieve what you describe--players simply accepting a thing without much comment or criticism--the DM needs to build up the reason why there is or should be a place where fire spells deal half damage.

That’s a trivial thing to do.

Instead of simply declaring that it is true, or perhaps not declaring it and leaving it as a(n unpleasant) surprise for later, the DM has to metaphorically show their work.

They really don’t.

Now, they don't have to shout it from the rooftops and give a full Vaudeville show, but either this quirk needs to be called out openly, or the players need a clear and fair opportunity to find out (even if it just ends up being that they didn't do so), or, preferably, a trail of diegetic breadcrumbs leads to the reveal at least a little bit in advance.

Good ideas but not necessary.

From there, I assert that players can do something very similar: openly discuss OOC what one's goal is, or (preferably) diegetically attempt things (see below on the success issue) within the world that would contribute to what you want to happen actually happening. Just as with the DM above, the player is constrained; neither one can simply fiat declare whatever they like, but rather, they must do work, building up from what is known, perhaps filling in some blanks along the way if such filling-in is reasonable and context-appropriate.

Whatever you are trying to say in this paragraph - I’m lost.

That doesn't mean there aren't differences. Many things DMs can do freely, while players, if they can do them at all, usually must spend resources or take risks. But somethings also involve DMs effectively spending resources. Encounter-building is exactly that--and it is expected that the GM will not simply create unwinnable or trivial encounters, but will actually "use" the XP budget (as 4e put it) in a way that is reasonable and context-appropriate.

Tell that to any sandbox DM. They create a world with both trivial and too hard of encounters for the PCs and part of the game is navigating the world, deciding when to lurid ur certain goals and when to back off then because the encounter would be unsinkable at the current time.

And I, instead, would suggest that most instances of that are simply DM fiat, without actually giving the players a fair shake--which is pretty harmful to agency. When related stuff was brought up (IIRC it was Folk Hero back then, but the issue is the same), this whole "no, that doesn't apply here" was quite clearly sprung upon the player, rather than being the natural result of the DM building up to such a breakdown occurring.

Why? In fact, why the heck is your default assumption that the DM would simply shut down the noble or folk hero background feature completely arbitrarily? What does the DM gain from doing that? IMO nothing.

The more plausible explanation is that he wouldn’t arbitrarily shut off that feature. He would have some reason based on the prep and extrapolation from it that such a feature doesn’t work here.

Also, I no longer know where the post was, but somewhere upthread, you made the argument that, effectively, if the player does not succeed (not cannot succeed, does not succeed), then their agency has been denied. This I flatly reject. Agency means having a sincere opportunity: the action attempted is agreed to be plausible by all parties (and no party denies plausibility without fairly-established justification), success is genuinely possible, the relative probabilities are reasonable for the situation and sufficiently communicated to all parties, and any adjudication that results from the attempt (success or failure) is reasonable both within the rules of play and within the fictional situation.

I’m not going to talk about any supposed posts I made without the context of the post itself and surrounding posts as reference. Quite frankly I think you are missing alot of nuance or caveats from whatever I did actually post, or misremembering who posted that entirely.

 

[pemerton]

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 wouldn’t expect him to bat an eye if he was told you can’t cast spells here at all either.

I don't find these claims plausible. I've read lots of posts and discussions - mostly pertaining to 3E/PF - about issues with using undead-heavy scenarios when a player is a rogue, about issues around blocking certain sorts of spell approaches, etc.

Railroading isn’t the GM expecting players to follow the linear story, it’s forcing them to do so.

How does the GM force the players to follow whatever it is that they've prepped?

 

[Oofta]

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

Let's say you're in If you're in the City of Brass, there is no reason for the Sultan to give you audience. Why would they? They don't consider you to be of the same social class. There's likely no benefit from establishing relationship for economic or social reasons. As far as they're concerned you belong to an inferior class of beings, mud grubbing mortals. Not only that, but how are you even going to let them know you want an audience? You go up to an efreeti guard and demand an audience because you're the Grand High Poobah of some backwater material realm, not even native to the plane of fire? You'll be lucky if they just laugh.

Traditionally in a medieval European society, when people travelled nobles would provide lodging for other nobles. But this was because they were of the same social caste and because there was always the possibility of gaining some sort of advantage through trade ties or even just gossip. Ultimately though it was because they had some reason to respect your title if not your family and reputation. Go far enough and that title will be completely meaningless and gives you no leverage.

Getting an audience with a noble is a matter of political or social influence. In some circles your political influence will matter. In others they won't because of the lore and structure of the campaign world.

 

[Oofta]

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.

I agree that the DM adjudicates the players declared actions. The players have agency as a PC, a character in the world the DM establishes. They don't get to alter the world through player declarations.

 

[FrozenNorth]

Is it necessary? No. Does it make the game better? I don't think so. If I wanted authorial control as a player there are other games out there that are built around it and don't need to be hacked to make it balanced and fun for the group.

When we ask “it is better?” we’re definitely in the realm of opinion, but I think there are definite benefits to giving some authorial control to players.
1. Lightens the cognitive load on the DM from having to create everything;
2. Reminds the players that they are also responsible for the fun at the table;
3. Allows the players to be more invested in the world around them, that they had a hand in creating.
4. Encourage people to DM who might otherwise be daunted by having to be responsible for everything;
5. Players having more authority to shape elements of the game to interest them, instead of the DM having to guess.

I’m sure that the other posters who enjoy exercising some authorial power can give examples of other benefits.

All the posters here have played in multiple games in which authorial intent resides solely on the GM. Meanwhile, it seems that most of the posters who want authorial intent to reside solely with the GM have never played in such a game and don’t want to try.

In the merchant/pirate ship it's one person making the switch (assuming there actually is a switch). The other players may have preferred that it had stayed a merchant ship.

It’s always a single person making the determination. In one case, it’s the DM. In the other it’s a player.

So let me turn that around for you: in the case the DM states it’s a merchant ship, it remains a merchant ship, regardless of whether all the other players may have preferred it to be a pirate ship.