D&D General What is player agency to you?

[Mort]

If it's not clear, the players I have problems with hold no illusions about what I think of them.

It's very clear. And since it's that clear. playing at the same table can't be an enjoyable experience for you or them!

Except there is no trust.

I can't think of anything more important.

For these players to pay full attention and engage in your lore to the extent that you expect? They need to trust that this will pay off.

Not that they'll "win" or succeed or whatever, but payoff in the sense that regardless of what happens it will be engaging, interesting and fun. Without that trust, even a short term campaign isn't going to be good for you or them.

Well, it's only for the summer.

How many sessions is that? In my experience, even one session where you're miserable AND these players are miserable is probably too many.

 

[soviet]

That's also something I've never heard a DM say at the table. "It doesn't work because [reason]" happens. Even the occasional "You think it should work but it doesn't" comes in now and then with the reason typically revealed at some point later.

But the arbitrary, no reason, no explanation? Doesn't happen in my experience.

Didn't really say it did, although I can see how it could be read that way. One can always find a reason to say no.

 

[Mort]

That's also something I've never heard a DM say at the table. "It doesn't work because [reason]" happens. Even the occasional "You think it should work but it doesn't" comes in now and then with the reason typically revealed at some point later.

But the arbitrary, no reason, no explanation? Doesn't happen in my experience.

I've seen it with inexperienced (usually young) DMs who are afraid with "giving away the game."

They are afraid that saying yes to anything other than obvious "legal" requests will make it too easy for the players to solve/finish whatever scenario they have going on. But because it's a reflexive "no" there really is little behind it - thus arbitrary and without explanation.

Most seem to grow out of it, or stop DMing. But I have seen a few older DMs who still maintain this attitude.

 

[soviet]

I've seen it with inexperienced (usually young) DMs who are afraid with "giving away the game."

They are afraid that saying yes to anything other than obvious "legal" requests will make it too easy for the players to solve/finish whatever scenario they have going on. But because it's a reflexive "no" there really is little behind it - thus arbitrary and without explanation.

Most seem to grow out of it, or stop DMing. But I have seen a few older DMs who still maintain this attitude.

An example I remember from my own gaming is many years ago in 3e we were sneaking through a dungeon and entered the part that was ruled by a particular big bad. One of the PCs had a scroll of change self (or something like that) and used it to impersonate the really big bad and ordered the guards to summon the local big bad for a meeting. Brilliant! The player did a good job roleplaying the really big bad and made his bluff check and it felt like we were about to get an opportunity to jump forward in the adventure.

The GM asked 'how long does that scroll of change self last?'

The player replied 'an hour'

The GM replied 'OK the local big bad takes an hour and one minute to get to you'

 

[soviet]

How many sessions is that?

It's twelve sessions but eight exploded campaigns

 

[Oofta]

Didn't really say it did, although I can see how it could be read that way. One can always find a reason to say no.

There's a difference between finding a reason to say no and saying no for a reason.

 

[Maxperson]

'You're not allowed to try because I said so' isn't failure

Yes it is. The PC made the attempt in the game and failed. That's a failure plain and simple.

You're conflating saying no because it's logically the correct answer to the attempt. "Your PC attempts to jump to the moon but only manages to go about 3 feet into the air. Don't bother rolling." with a DM saying no in order to further his agenda, "Hmm. I really don't want you to be able to climb up and just grab the McGuffin, so you fail." The first does not diminish agency in the slightest, while the second does.

And of course I showed above how saying yes to every attempt by a PC actually diminishes agency.

 

[Maxperson]

I think how strong a justification really is can be affected by the attitude and willingness of the GM. The attitude and inclination of the players matters too. There's probably a certain amount of self-selection going on in terms of groups who like to come up with creative justifications for such things and groups who don't.

This I can see. For instance, a group who goes with the rule of cool is likely to allow things as well justified that others might not due to it being cool.

 

[dave2008]

I just understand things differently...

I think you should have stopped there. That is more honest and probably true of most of us.

 

[soviet]

Yes it is. The PC made the attempt in the game and failed. That's a failure plain and simple.

You're conflating saying no because it's logically the correct answer to the attempt. "Your PC attempts to jump to the moon but only manages to go about 3 feet into the air. Don't bother rolling." with a DM saying no in order to further his agenda, "Hmm. I really don't want you to be able to climb up and just grab the McGuffin, so you fail." The first does not diminish agency in the slightest, while the second does.

And of course I showed above how saying yes to every attempt by a PC actually diminishes agency.

Who has said that players should be able to jump to the moon?

And I didn't get the impression that this hypothetical noble being denied an audience got much of an opportunity to make a counter-argument, it was a lot of heavy-handed 'you can't even try to do that, nothing happens' - as though the player really did want to jump to the moon.

as I posted a while ago, a long running feud between your two houses, but there are plenty, you could be on a different world where no one knows you, it could be a friendly noble, but he is too scared to meet you because your powerful enemies let him know in no uncertain terms that doing so would be very detrimental to his health, …

To me there has to be a logical reason for the background feature to matter. A lord in the City of Brass isn't going to care that my PC from a plane of existence they know nothing about is not going to have any influence. It's a throw-away line at the end of a long description. The description explicitly says to work with the DM to determine how much authority you have.

Backgrounds are not hard rules in my game, the social aspects of the world still need to make sense in context.