D&D General What is player agency to you?

[Scott Christian]

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?

This is a really good question, and I am not sure I have a complete answer. I did reflect on it, and I really think it depends on what style of game I am running as opposed to the amount of prep.

For example, if I am running a sandbox game (which I am right now), all the player's backgrounds, both taken via PHB and the part that is created by the player, have trumped the campaign's setting. And it is a very tight setting: high desert frontier with antagonists and locales in motion. But what they wrote has always trumped what I already have. (There is a specific example in this campaign where we have an assassin. In his backstory, he wrote his house, who he is tracking, why he is assassinating him, and even a temple/shrine he is looking for so that he can offer a prayer for his family afterwards. All those things were added to the setting. And they are a side quest in the large scheme of things, albeit most of it has been solo due to the unlawful nature of the quest. The group may end up being a part of it or not. That is up to what they decide to do.)

Contrast this to a more quest-oriented game; a game that is more linear in nature. Here they might give me the same exact information, yet not all of it is utilized. That is because at session zero we all sat down and agreed to complete a quest. (Generally, my campaigns are relatively short taking only three or four months.) So, there may not be an opportunity to work in that assassin's backstory. If there is, great. If not, oh well.

In my own experience and many years DMing, I have never had a player upset or disappointed by a quest not utilizing their complete backstory (there is always a little of it added). I think communication helps here. And, when I was reflecting on it, I can remember a time where the backstory trait came into play. I run our high school's D&D club, and one of the players had taken the street urchin background. In it, it says they have a pet rat or something like that. She had convinced the DM at some point in their adventure that she befriended a cat. And then a pigeon. And then, in the next session, she pulled out her rat and the DM said no. She disagreed. They asked me. (I just sit, listen, and grade papers. But am sometimes called to arbitrate.) I told him the PHB does say she has a pet rat. So he acquiesced unhappily, as he wanted to play the adventure, not her side game of collecting animals. I guess what I am trying to say is I told that DM to follow what it says in the PHB.

Sorry for the long answer, just trying to reflect on it thoroughly.

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

Because circumstances sometimes lead to roadblocks would be my answer. I was a player in a campaign once where the port was completely barricaded by warships. Not even fishing vessels were allowed to leave. I wasn't DM, but if we had asked him to secure passage, I feel like he would have every right to say no for that session. And then, if needed, construct something that represented the danger of these warships and the seriousness of trying to leave.

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.

I agree with all your points except the bolded. I have seen many players just use their background feature as a utility spell and not actually part of their character. I have seen an outlander resist all attempts the DM gave him to explore his background. He stated he only took it for the skills. Then, when it suddenly came to being lost, he said, I use the terrain feature. Mind you, he never played his character as an outlander. He never even had a hint of it in his character. Even the image of his character didn't give you an outlander vibe. He took it because of the skills. Then wanted to use its feature when it was useful.

(Side note: There is absolutely 100% nothing wrong with this. I truly enjoyed gaming with this player. But trust me, he was never interested in his background. He built things to be succinct and powerful, with little care for history or story. He thought, I am creating my character's story as we play, which is just as valid.)

 

[soviet]

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.

Would you agree that all their agency to alter the world is subject to a GM veto? (Beyond just dialogue and direct action declarations)

 

[FrozenNorth]

What I have an issue with is the negative connotation and language to things like the following:


There's no "DM believing" anything, the core assumption of D&D is and always has been that the players are responsible for their PCs and what they do, the DM is responsible for pretty much everything else. It's not the only way to design a game but it is the way D&D is designed and has worked for nearly half a century.

Would “assert” be more appropriate?

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

And again, players have always done this.

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

Agreed, the PHB and DMG constitute the rules of the game. One book is for both, and the other book is for DMs. The DMs are given the information on what constitutes a quest and the details of such. Hence, they still have the same control over the quest as they have always had.

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.

2nd edition had massive supplements that talked all the time about player induced quests? 3e did too. And I will give you, I do not recall much of my Blue Box days other than me thinking the game was magical and awesome. So maybe it wasn't in those originals.

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

They do. They do it differently.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

I agree. I was trying to simplify. Great point.

 

[Scott Christian]

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?

Great example and one I can actually relate to:
For the record, I was holding my breath and tried to use second wind, and the DM suggested it wouldn't work because my normal training allowed me to focus on my breathing to supply that extra burst. I was fine with it. But I generally go along with what the DM says anyways. Maybe others would have had a problem, but I have a hard time seeing why.

 

[Mort]

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.

I thought we were done with this, but ok.

These are ALL just the DM saying "nah, I don't want to..."

The City of Brass Noble could be intrigued by the novelty.

He could easily recognize the massively beneficial trade opportunities in having a direct connection to the material plane.

He could have a task that would best be accomplished by foreign mortals.

There are countless reasons to grant audience. And because of the feature, you pick one of those - easy.

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.

Yet more "I just don't want to..."

The DM can ALWAYS find a reason to or not to make the feature work and ensure it's completely consistent with the politics at hand.

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.

The feature can easily comply with your criteria and still work.

But I get what you are saying, I really do. In which case, your players need to know that the feature is watered down when they are picking options.

 

[Oofta]

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.



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.

I thought it was obvious that I was speaking of my personal preference.

When the DM decides that it's a merchant ship, it's likely because they're not ready to run a pirate encounter. I'll always do what I can to make the game enjoyable for the group, but as DM I put a lot more effort into the game than the players. In a game based on a narrative structure, deciding things on the fly like this will have less impact. On the other hand, if I already had a pirate encounter prepped perhaps that merchant ship does become a pirate ship.

But all of this is just preferences. For me the game works well with the traditional roles of player and DM being distinct with the DM controlling the world and it's inhabitants and the players being responsible for their PCs. When I play a character I want to focus on being that character. I want to inhabit a fantasy world, not create one if I'm not DMing so of course other games that share authorial control don't really appeal to me.

There are obviously ways to shift D&D a bit, but it's never going to be Fate, it's just not structured to work that way.

P.S. You sound a bit holier-than-thou when you make it sound like people who don't want to share authorial control just don't know better because they don't play other systems. A main reason I don't play other systems because they don't appeal.

 

[FrozenNorth]

I don't know how to say this more clearly. I've provided examples of scenarios where players get authority over something outside their PC in D&D. No one batted an eye. It's the jump you are trying to make from authority over a few things outside the PC, to it would generally be fine to allow PC's in D&D authority over anything outside the PC's that's simply not true. There is so much the DM is doing in a D&D game that is hidden from the players that giving them authority over those things is eventually going to cause issues even if the player isn't trying to.

I feel we are posting at cross-purposes, since I don’t understand how what I’m saying is relevant to your point and vice-versa.

I was responding to what I perceived was your point that adding more player authorial to D&D would break the game. My response is that I don’t think so.

One of the things I like about 5e is that it is relatively simple, so it is easy to add and modify elements. I don’t think anyone posting on this thread is playing unmodified D&D now.

If giving players more authorial control is a good thing, and I believe it is, there are a ton of ways to do it, some of which can be borrowed from other games that already do it.

However, I disagree with your last point, that to play D&D the DM HAS to have a large amount of information that is hidden from the players that the players will likely derail if they get more authorial input.

Even today, many DMs play D&D using a largely improvisational style.

I thought I passed Thulsa Doom with flying colors?

It’s one of those tests where everyone grades themselves because the teacher has a hangover.

In my opinion, you added a crucial caveat to the Tulsa Doom example: “as long as it doesn’t conflict with the DM’s plans”.

I think so. I took forgranted earlier that player and pc motivation need not overlap. I think either is enough to make it fall into the category of 'altering the games reality'

I think taking an extremely broad definition of “player’s advantage”, to the point where “increases the player’s fun at the table” is considered an advantage waters down the proposed definition.

If the player is given authorial power to establish a prior event or detail for the purpose of gaining an advantage in the games present - (whether that's via PC memory or other means), then that is very much what it meant by 'altering the games reality'.

I mean, if “increases a player’s fun at the table” is an advantage, what is left? A player can make a change as long as it is insignificant and doesn’t impact their fun at the table?

That does militate in favour of my proposed definition: a player is “altering the game’s reality” when they exercise authorial power to establish a prior event or detail that meaningfully conflicts with something the DM has decided, whether it has been established or the table or not.

 

[Oofta]

This is a really good question, and I am not sure I have a complete answer. I did reflect on it, and I really think it depends on what style of game I am running as opposed to the amount of prep.

For example, if I am running a sandbox game (which I am right now), all the player's backgrounds, both taken via PHB and the part that is created by the player, have trumped the campaign's setting. And it is a very tight setting: high desert frontier with antagonists and locales in motion. But what they wrote has always trumped what I already have. (There is a specific example in this campaign where we have an assassin. In his backstory, he wrote his house, who he is tracking, why he is assassinating him, and even a temple/shrine he is looking for so that he can offer a prayer for his family afterwards. All those things were added to the setting. And they are a side quest in the large scheme of things, albeit most of it has been solo due to the unlawful nature of the quest. The group may end up being a part of it or not. That is up to what they decide to do.)

Contrast this to a more quest-oriented game; a game that is more linear in nature. Here they might give me the same exact information, yet not all of it is utilized. That is because at session zero we all sat down and agreed to complete a quest. (Generally, my campaigns are relatively short taking only three or four months.) So, there may not be an opportunity to work in that assassin's backstory. If there is, great. If not, oh well.

In my own experience and many years DMing, I have never had a player upset or disappointed by a quest not utilizing their complete backstory (there is always a little of it added). I think communication helps here. And, when I was reflecting on it, I can remember a time where the backstory trait came into play. I run our high school's D&D club, and one of the players had taken the street urchin background. In it, it says they have a pet rat or something like that. She had convinced the DM at some point in their adventure that she befriended a cat. And then a pigeon. And then, in the next session, she pulled out her rat and the DM said no. She disagreed. They asked me. (I just sit, listen, and grade papers. But am sometimes called to arbitrate.) I told him the PHB does say she has a pet rat. So he acquiesced unhappily, as he wanted to play the adventure, not her side game of collecting animals. I guess what I am trying to say is I told that DM to follow what it says in the PHB.

Sorry for the long answer, just trying to reflect on it thoroughly.

Because circumstances sometimes lead to roadblocks would be my answer. I was a player in a campaign once where the port was completely barricaded by warships. Not even fishing vessels were allowed to leave. I wasn't DM, but if we had asked him to secure passage, I feel like he would have every right to say no for that session. And then, if needed, construct something that represented the danger of these warships and the seriousness of trying to leave.

I agree with all your points except the bolded. I have seen many players just use their background feature as a utility spell and not actually part of their character. I have seen an outlander resist all attempts the DM gave him to explore his background. He stated he only took it for the skills. Then, when it suddenly came to being lost, he said, I use the terrain feature. Mind you, he never played his character as an outlander. He never even had a hint of it in his character. Even the image of his character didn't give you an outlander vibe. He took it because of the skills. Then wanted to use its feature when it was useful.

(Side note: There is absolutely 100% nothing wrong with this. I truly enjoyed gaming with this player. But trust me, he was never interested in his background. He built things to be succinct and powerful, with little care for history or story. He thought, I am creating my character's story as we play, which is just as valid.)

In my experience most players just pick backgrounds because of what skills you get. Part of that is the nature of D&D groups and players leaving. I can't guarantee someone is not going to move cross country like happened recently or, as is happening soon, to a different country on a different continent. So if I built specific aspects of the game around a specific PC, it can be disruptive when that PC has to drop out. So instead of direction being based on one character for longer term arcs I base it on group consensus.

I may try to make backgrounds really matter in my next campaign, but I've rarely had players that really care that much or that can come up with something other than the super vague "I'm going to become the greatest [fill in class]." Which is an admirable goal but not really something actionable.