D&D General What is player agency to you?

[pemerton]

As I know you are aware, there are many techniques to ‘force’ players in a particular direction. Should we really be going down that rabbit hole?

I'm aware of many techniques for establishing the content of the fiction. I don't find it helpful to use the metaphor of "forcing players*. (And in the context of a social hobby game it's not really possible to literally force the players to imagine things.)

 

[pemerton]

Players have been establishing quests since at least 1e.

Players: "Hey DM. You mentioned that there is a tribe of barbarians to the north?"
DM: "Yep. The We're Cold But Are Too Stubborn to Leave tribe."
Players: "We've decided that we are going to go north and install Bruce here as the new chief of the tribe."

A player created quest!

That is not a quest in the 4e sense. It is not a story framework that requires the GM to establish a set of encounters/challenges where it lies at the end.

AD&D doesn't really even have the tools (encounter building tools, skill challenge framework, treasure parcels) to do that.

 

[Maxperson]

That is not a quest in the 4e sense. It is not a story framework that requires the GM to establish a set of encounters/challenges where it lies at the end.

Why not? There are going to be encounters along the way. Encounters in the tribe. Encounters with the current chief. Potential challenges and skill challenges(if it's 4e). If the DM isn't prepping for that quest, he's likely doing it wrong. It's no different than if the DM had designed an adventure(quest) to become chief except for who is initiating it.

AD&D doesn't really even have the tools (encounter building tools, skill challenge framework, treasure parcels) to do that.

It's still a quest. 4e doesn't get to dictate to other editions what is or is not a quest. 4e just has some rules for the DM to use to run the quest, where in the other editions the DM has to do it himself. A quest is a quest is a quest, though.

 

[mamba]

That is not a quest in the 4e sense. It is not a story framework that requires the GM to establish a set of encounters/challenges where it lies at the end.

it kinda is, because your players are now on a trek to that tribe. Something is bound to happen on the way there, or at the latest when they arrive

AD&D doesn't really even have the tools (encounter building tools, skill challenge framework, treasure parcels) to do that.

that the game does not offer many tools to support the GM in coming up with what happens along the way is true. I am curious which game you think is offering good mechanical support for that

 

[Mort]

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.

Games aren't played in a vacuum.

The group quite likely will have means of long range communication in addition to any criminal background feature (message, animal messenger, a familiar etc.) And can use that in addition with any background feature to justify communication. No random sailor required. I'm keeping to strictly 5e means here.

 

[pemerton]

Question: Is someone suggesting D&D can't be played with high player agency or just that they don't play it that way?

I think the conclusion is that in a game about exploring the GM or adventure paths world (a fundamental premise of D&D) that the DM being forced to make up a fictional reason to say yes to the player actively violates that fundamental premise.

I think the second quote here answers the first: it asserts that a fundamental premise of D&D is players-explore-the-GM's-world.

I've posted rules text from 4e D&D that contradicts that "fundamental premise"; and together with others have posted rules text from 5e D&D - the Noble background feature - that contradicts that "fundamental premise" - but there are posters in this thread who downplay or dismiss the 4e text, and read caveats and exception into the 5e text, so as to uphold the "fundamental premise".

 

[Oofta]

Games aren't played in a vacuum.

The group quite likely will have means of long range communication in addition to any criminal background feature (message, animal messenger, a familiar etc.) And can use that in addition with any background feature to justify communication. No random sailor required. I'm keeping to strictly 5e means here.

If they have access to the sending spell or similar then the criminal background feature is not relevant one way or another.

 

[pemerton]

There were multiple checks for how well the druid distracted the ogres, I was just pointing out that nothing in the rules allows for one PC to distract an enemy so others could sneak past in plain sight.

This is in the 5e Basic PDF, at p 60:

In combat, most creatures stay alert for signs of danger all around, so if you come out of hiding and approach a creature, it usually sees you. However, under certain circumstances, the Dungeon Master might allow you to stay hidden as you approach a creature that is distracted, allowing you to gain advantage on an attack before you are seen.​

Which in turn seems to echo this from the 4e Rules Compendium, at p 152:

Outside combat, the DM might allow a creature to make a Stealth check against a distracted target, even if the creature doesn’t have superior cover or total concealment and isn’t outside the target’s line of sight. The target might be focused on something in a different direction, allowing the creature to sneak around it.​

The 4e rule is reinforced by the rules for using Bluff to create a diversion to hide (RC, p 142).

 

[pemerton]

So are you saying it's ok for players to force a DM to run "their" quest then? It sure sounds that way?

I am saying that this is what the 4e D&D rulebooks say (as per the rules text that I quoted upthread). I am also saying that I enjoy 4e D&D.

And what would "making a Story Framework" look like? Do the players just get to say something at random and then the DM just "jumps" to make what they are told to make? Do the players have to submit a multi page Story Framework Outline?

The rules of 4e D&D are quite clear that it is the GM's job to establish the situation, by presenting encounters. So if a player establishes a quest, then the GM's role is to present encounters that enable the quest to be achieved. The 4e DMG gives reasonably detailed advice on how to do this.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

It is genuinely refreshing to find another person who thinks death is one of the least interesting stakes. (Though I do appreciate the irony of your username in that context!)