D&D General What is player agency to you?

[Oofta]

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.

If the players fail to rescue the princess they can either try again or do something else. If they do something else the only consequence may be that they don't get paid. It's quite possible their reputation could take a hit and/or some other rival group could succeed where they failed. But there's always an option to simply fail.

 

[soviet]

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.

Well sure, I'm not suggesting that 'I jump to the moon' and suchlike should be OK. And even assuming good faith all round there will occasionally be miscommunications or other unavoidable reasons not to allow something. But 'I'm a noble and I'd like to secure an audience with the local nobles' doesn't seem like it falls into this category.

 

[soviet]

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

So you accept your game has less player agency?

 

[FrogReaver]

Well sure, I'm not suggesting that 'I jump to the moon' and suchlike should be OK. And even assuming good faith all round there will occasionally be miscommunications or other unavoidable reasons not to allow something. But 'I'm a noble and I'd like to secure an audience with the local nobles' doesn't seem like it falls into this category.

That depends on what restrictions the game and the players social contract with each other place on action declarations. And who if anyone in the group is given the authority to determines if an action declaration is invalid.

 

[Mort]

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

Huh?

They are using an ability they (or someone else in the group) has, that is backed up by magic or skill use, to contact an established criminal contact.

How does that NOT make sense "in the fiction?" I would argue shutting it down makes no sense in the fiction.

 

[Mort]

If the players fail to rescue the princess they can either try again or do something else. If they do something else the only consequence may be that they don't get paid. It's quite possible their reputation could take a hit and/or some other rival group could succeed where they failed. But there's always an option to simply fail.

My point is "failure" isn't some kind of end state that stops everything cold and everyone goes home - generally the game continues.

You're not even disagreeing with me, we're BOTH saying failure happens and then things move on.

 

[Oofta]

So you accept your game has less player agency?

Less agency compared to what? The players have more agency than if we were playing most modules, less than if anything and everything they dream up is possible.

I don't see agency as an inherent good, it needs to be balanced against several other factors. What people value is going to vary from one group to the next.

 

[Oofta]

Huh?

They are using an ability they (or someone else in the group) has, that is backed up by magic or skill use, to contact an established criminal contact.

How does that NOT make sense "in the fiction?" I would argue shutting it down makes no sense in the fiction.

We disagree and I see no reason to put this on continued spin cycle.

As a DM I feel no obligation to have everything the players attempt work, even if it is a background feature.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

FWIW, I'm not sure if this discussion about backgrounds will have much value going forward. It does seem that WotC is going to drop these sort of background features. But the reason is probably not necessarily for the reasons that you dislike them. I seem to recall a number of statements by WotC that when it comes to One D&D, they are trying to move away from "Mother May I" character features. Some of the background features, such as the Noble's background in question, can entail "Mother May I," as we are seeing in this discussion.

Yeah, this does seem likely. I stopped paying any attention to the playtests a while back, but that much seemed clear even very early on. I hope they're replaced with more clearly worded versions... perhaps feats of some sort, which people seem to allow to work as expected without much DM interpretation.

Yeah, it's that specific thing, the "will you get any use at all out of this feature? Find out next time, on Dungeon Master Z!" I see far too much effort put into giving reasons why things players might try to do definitely can't work, and very, very little effort into trying to find a way so that it can work, or at least to meet in the middle on stuff.

I hear, very, very frequently, people complain about how terrible players are. That they will cheat, swindle, exploit, blatantly twist wording, ride roughshod no matter what, etc. Essentially, that every player should be presumed to play in bad faith. That you absolutely must have the Hobbesian strong, central authority who can suppress the bellum omnium contra omnes long enough to permit an actually enjoyable game to occur. And under those lights, these folks claim they are perfectly justified in shutting down basically anything players seek, with or without reason--because shutting folks down is cutting off such exploitation in advance, implicitly.

My point is "failure" isn't some kind of end state that stops everything cold and everyone goes home - generally the game continues.

You're not even disagreeing with me, we're BOTH saying failure happens and then things move on.

The problem comes in when that does happen...which is why PbtA advocates "fail forward," so things DO actually move on and don't just sit there spinning wheels because nothing can happen until the players stop failing at something. This also highlights exactly why high lethality is an issue for a lot of players. It feels, to us, like a failure which cannot be continued. Everything stops cold because, y'know, you're dead.

 

[TwoSix]

Well sure, I'm not suggesting that 'I jump to the moon' and suchlike should be OK. And even assuming good faith all round there will occasionally be miscommunications or other unavoidable reasons not to allow something. But 'I'm a noble and I'd like to secure an audience with the local nobles' doesn't seem like it falls into this category.

The real difference between a simulationist and narrativist focused game using that feature is this.

A simulationist DM will have made a note already that the Duke of this region often travels during the summer, and as such won't be in their estate to receive an audience from May to August. Despite not being able to use their class feature, the simulationist player is happy because it demonstrates that the campaign world has details that exist beyond the scope of the character, which makes the setting feel more immersive and real.

A narrativist DM will make up the name of a Duke (unless a name is already in play due to previous framing), and introduce the next scene where the character can meet the Duke. The narrativist player is pleased because he knows this Duke was part of the conspiracy that unjustly murdered his father, and he can finally confront the foul murderer.