D&D General What is player agency to you?

[soviet]

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.

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.

No, this conflates a narrativist agenda with no myth / heavily improvised play, which is not at all a given. I'm not sure if you're also implying that in the narr game the player is inventing a solution to an in-game mystery.

 

[Mort]

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.

I have no desire to spin in circles, but you didn't actually answer the question. I have no idea what we are disagreeing about.

How does the PC using sending (or some other means of communication) to communicate with a known criminal contact (that they happened to get through a feature instead of roleplaying) in any way make no sense in the fiction (whatever that fiction may be)?

 

[soviet]

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.

Less agency compared to a game where the GM has a more permissive attitude to player actions.

I agree that player agency is not the only goal a game can have, and that other things can be prioritised instead.

 

[Mort]

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.

I certainly see that. Though I tend to consider character death the least interesting and, in many ways, least impactful form of failure.

Unless it's some kind of iron man game - where if you lose your character your out (which I have never seen) death of a PC just means bringing in a new PC and continuing from there. Sure it's an end of one path, but a whole new one is right there.

 

[TwoSix]

No, this conflates a narrativist agenda with no myth / heavily improvised play, which is not at all a given. I'm not sure if you're also implying that in the narr game the player is inventing a solution to an in-game mystery.

What game combines heavy out-of-game setting prep with narrative agenda? To the point where non-introduced setting details could invalidate a player declaration? I'm honestly curious.

And running a mystery in a heavy narr/high player authority setting is doable but someone fraught, based on previous discussions we've had around here. I would certainly be very cautious about doing it.

 

[Oofta]

I have no desire to spin in circles, but you didn't actually answer the question. I have no idea what we are disagreeing about.

How does the PC using sending (or some other means of communication) to communicate with a known criminal contact (that they happened to get through a feature instead of roleplaying) in any way make no sense in the fiction (whatever that fiction may be)?

Maybe I misunderstood. You're adding an option of a spell to the scenario. That doesn't have anything to do with the background feature.

If the PCs are in the middle of the ocean I'm not going to suddenly add a sailor that just happens to have a sending spell or a stone in order to make the background feature work. If they find themselves on a mysterious island that has no communication with the outside world, they still won't have chance to send a message. If they find that pirates use the island as a base of operations, they have a chance to send the message but it's not automatic.

 

[Oofta]

Less agency compared to a game where the GM has a more permissive attitude to player actions.

I agree that player agency is not the only goal a game can have, and that other things can be prioritised instead.

Not sure how many ways that I can say that there are likely other games where players have more agency. I simply don't think it has that much to do with how enjoyable a game is.

I wouldn't want to play a game that had zero agency, I probably wouldn't enjoy a game that had max agency (if I even knew what that would look like). My games are somewhere in the muddy middle like most games. It's not like there's an agreed upon Certified Agency Rating anywhere.

 

[mamba]

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

If you can keep failing your way to success, you were not really failing to begin with. Yes, I know this is hyperbole, but so was your entire post.

 

[mamba]

Less agency compared to a game where the GM has a more permissive attitude to player actions.

that is self evident, but more agency is not inherently the only or main goal (within reason)

 

[soviet]

What game combines heavy out-of-game setting prep with narrative agenda? To the point where non-introduced setting details could invalidate a player declaration? I'm honestly curious.

I'm not 100% sure what 'heavy' means here but plenty of narr games use a bunch of pre-game prep - BW, Dogs, Other Worlds, I think PbtA. Certainly to the extent that the name and characteristics of a Duke might be predefined. One can even play narr with traditional game systems like D&D or MERP if desired.

I don't think it follows that the prep would commonly be used to invalidate player actions, but sometimes sure.

And running a mystery in a heavy narr/high player authority setting is doable but someone fraught, based on previous discussions we've had around here. I would certainly be very cautious about doing it.

I haven't directly done a murder mystery or something of that nature but I've done exploration heavy games with setting secrets to uncover before without difficulty.