D&D General What is player agency to you?

[soviet]

Isn't 'sometimes things don't work out' covered by the dice rolls that follow from an action? Rather than just forbidding the attempt altogether?

 

[Mort]

I did miss the part of the fingers. However, I still don't agree that "being able to take whatever the players do and advance things forward" is always for the best. Sometimes plans don't work. If the PCs hire someone, perhaps the group they hire fails and now the kidnappers know that you know where they are and it becomes more difficult to achieve the rescue.

Advancing things forward, at least to me, doesn't at all mean plans always work. Sometimes they will, sometimes they won't. Sometimes they'll kind of sort of work. And all permutations in between.

It means regardless of that, something happens. If they succeed - something happens. If they fail - something happens. If it's partial - something happens.

The trick is to make any given result interesting.

 

[Oofta]

Why would players declare actions that were impossible?

What does 'the narrative' mean? The GM's narrative?

If a PC declares that they are contacting their criminal contact while they are on a boat in the middle of the ocean, that action is obviously not possible. But yes, the narrative, the campaign world and how it works is the purview of the DM.

There are times when people will attempt things that can't work. If it can't work there will be a reason, even if the players are not aware of it at the moment.

 

[FrogReaver]

They're not forced to. They want to.

It's fine to play games that limit player agency for other reasons eg verisimilitude or GM narrative. Player agency isn't everyone's number one priority. Just know that that is what you're doing.

IMO. One cannot have player agency to explore the world while at the same time having player agency to author the world. You get 1 or the other. Not both. So I disagree that this is a reduction in agency. It’s the same amount - just a different kind.

 

[Oofta]

Advancing things forward, at least to me, doesn't at all mean plans always work. Sometimes they will, sometimes they won't. Sometimes they'll kind of sort of work. And all permutations in between.

It means regardless of that, something happens. If they succeed - something happens. If they fail - something happens. If it's partial - something happens.

The trick is to make any given result interesting.

What can I say. Sometimes plans just fail, sometimes you just can't do what you thought you could. You take a step back, reevaluate and figure out a different approach or go a different direction.

 

[mamba]

If being able to take whatever the players do and advance things forward is not the hallmark of good DMing I have no idea what is. For example, if the PCs hire a group of people to rescue our hypothetical princess, all we do is say that the sub-contractors are 1.) successful and 2.) decide that they deserve the entire reward not just whatever the PCs allotted to them, and send them one of her severed fingers to make the point. Now the merfolk princess is in a different location and the PCs can now figure out how they want to deal with the greater problem they've created with all the trappings of a normal hostage/heist movie.

I do not see this as any better than the other party just taking the money and disappearing, so the situation is essentially the same, except the players already lost some of their reward.

I see either as better than the other party delivering the princess to the players As long as you see this as a 'finds a way to react to the player's ideas' rather than 'finds a way to make the player's ideas work' I am ok with this

 

[Mort]

If a PC declares that they are contacting their criminal contact while they are on a boat in the middle of the ocean, that action is obviously not possible. But yes, the narrative, the campaign world and how it works is the purview of the DM.

There are times when people will attempt things that can't work. If it can't work there will be a reason, even if the players are not aware of it at the moment.

In a game like D&D, I don't like declaring actions impossible easily(some might be, but it's a heck of a lot rarer than IRL).

Take your "If a PC declares that they are contacting their criminal contact while they are on a boat in the middle of the ocean, that action is obviously not possible." statement. If the criminal PC has access to sending (something a 5th level and above party might well have) then the action is trivial as opposed impossible - the PC then uses the rest of the Criminal Contact feature to obtain some assistance/advantage.

Even without sending, maybe the criminal PC knows how to send signals from a boat in such a way that EVENTUALLY they might get a message out (through a series of other ships or whatever) and get the help they need.

You're probably going to let them get out of the situation somehow, why not through a feature they have and want to use?

 

[FrogReaver]

Isn't 'sometimes things don't work out' covered by the dice rolls that follow from an action? Rather than just forbidding the attempt altogether?

Even in PbtA, BitD, Burning Wheel, etc the players actions are restricted beyond just using dice. There’s still a requirement they be in genre, that they follow from the fiction, etc.

Im not aware of any game allows a player to declare anything they want and then have it come true based on a successful roll - there’s always restrictions on what they can declare.

 

[Mort]

What can I say. Sometimes plans just fail, sometimes you just can't do what you thought you could. You take a step back, reevaluate and figure out a different approach or go a different direction.

Sure, but as you yourself just said, if the plan fails that doesn't mean NOTHING happens next.

It means the group tries something else - either trying something new to get their current project done or abandoning it and trying something completely different. Nothing I said contradicts that in any way.

 

[Oofta]

In a game like D&D, I don't like declaring actions impossible easily(some might be, but it's a heck of a lot rarer than IRL).

Take your "If a PC declares that they are contacting their criminal contact while they are on a boat in the middle of the ocean, that action is obviously not possible." statement. If the criminal PC has access to sending (something a 5th level and above party might well have) then the action is trivial as opposed impossible - the PC then uses the rest of the Criminal Contact feature to obtain some assistance/advantage.

Even without sending, maybe the criminal PC knows how to send signals from a boat in such a way that EVENTUALLY they might get a message out (through a series of other ships or whatever) and get the help they need.

You're probably going to let them get out of the situation somehow, why not through a feature they have and want to use?

Because it makes no sense in the fiction. I don't see letting the players do whatever they want as being a good thing.