D&D General What is player agency to you?

[Maxperson]

I actually think this is a really important part of the agency discussion. My reaction would be "of course I do! As a noble I'm acquainted with the proper procedures to ask for an audience at any level. I was taught that when I was very small." At the worst, I'd expect some sort of check to determine if that was true or not.

The problem comes from you being taught as a child the proper procedures for the Inkoobra folk who have literally never had contact with the world outside of their isolated island nation, such that you can just use those procedures AND that they would recognize nobles from elsewhere and automatically let them in, but not any of the non-noble PCs.

Sometimes it just doesn't make sense for an ability to work and your agency isn't suffering just because the DM recognizes that fact and says no. It's okay for your background ability to not work 100%, just like it's okay for your fireball that always does damage to do no damage because something is fire immune.

 

[mamba]

I actually think this is a really important part of the agency discussion. My reaction would be "of course I do! As a noble I'm acquainted with the proper procedures to ask for an audience at any level.

and you presumably knew how to ask, you just did not get one regardless. The forager also knows how to search for eggs, yet he will not find any in the winter.

I was taught that when I was very small." At the worst, I'd expect some sort of check to determine if that was true or not.

no, no check required. As I wrote, reasons beyond your control, just like winter is for the forager, or do you expect them to get a roll when searching for eggs regardless?

Saying "you don't know," well that assumes a lot about a character's background that we've never talked about, doesn't it?

I have no idea what you are talking about. I did not say that you cannot know the reason (but to me there are cases where you do not).

It assumes nothing about the background either, winter does not care about the details of the forager’s background either, they are irrelevant to the issue.

Maybe they do know, or maybe not. Does the DM actually know what the answer is, or are they just saying "there is a way to do this but the character doesn't know about it."

the DM says there is no way to get an audience, I gave several possible reasons for why it could be denied. That does not mean the character knows the reason or even that it is impossible, that depends on the circumstances

In many game systems, you'd have a framework for figuring that out, and I'd argue that D&D's skill checks along with the character's Background provide one. It's just that the DM is the ultimate authority on the issue ... and that's where agency comes into play.

no one says they do not, I am saying sometimes you just have no way of accomplishing something, and that is perfectly ok and not removing player agency in some unjustified way

 

[Mort]

Sometimes it just doesn't make sense for an ability to work and your agency isn't suffering just because the DM recognizes that fact and says no. It's okay for your background ability to not work 100%, just like it's okay for your fireball that always does damage to do no damage because something is fire immune.

As I said (way) upthread, rarely or even sometimes - well ok. But if something approaching much of the time the ability doesn't work "for reasons..." then it becomes a problem. Like if you decided to take a sorcerer that focuses on fire cleared it with the DM who said "sounds great..." and then during play you find out that the great majority of adversaries are resistant or immune to fire.

Had the equivalent happen to me in a Deadlands game:

Invited into the campaign and ask what kind of character is expected etc. Told that it's a relatively low power, low magic campaign. So I make a character that's ok with a gun but who's specialty is as a tracker. DM looks over the character, says he should work great in the group.

FIrst session, we're faced with a mystery and realize that the perp vamoosed. "Great" I think, I can be useful! So I track the perp, only to be told (after an absurdly high tracking roll - exploding dice and everything) that all I can tell is that the perp used magic to cover his escape and that I won't be able to track him.

Second session, another tracking opportunity comes up - different perp. Roll decent (not absurd like the session before, but should be a success) only to be told that something is preventing me from finding the trail and I wasn't successful.

Between that and a few other clear red flags - I didn't bother showing up for a 3rd session.

 

[pemerton]

no it doesn’t, it did not get denied because you did not know how to approach the subject / the proper etiquette for wherever you are from. It got denied for reasons beyond your control.

This is no different from your forager not finding any eggs because it is winter

I live my life surrounded by forces I don't control. This is part of what shapes the world I live in, understand, and move through.

My preferred approach, in RPGing, to the possibility of being caught by surprise, is dice rolls. But D&D uses a mixture of dice rolls and fiat authority. The Noble ability is fiat authority, and the flavour text for it underpins that: the player knows the ways of their own social class. If the player declares use of the ability, it's too late for the GM to now retroactively tell them about stuff they knew that would explain why the action can't be declared.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Except there is no trust.

Then there should not be a game in the first place.

If you don't trust the players and the players don't trust you, what you have is an exploitation machine, each side trying to subvert and conquer the other. How is that enjoyable? How is that a pleasing thing to spend your precious time upon?

Well, it's only for the summer.

I would not tolerate such a thing if it was only for the hour, let alone a whole bloody summer!

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.

Really? Folks on here talk about it frequently. Illusionism frequently requires it, for example. "My way or the highway" GMing, aka "viking hat" GMing, proudly claims the right to exactly that.

And it isn't better for the "reason" to be invented on the spot because the GM just doesn't like the thing involved. That one is particularly virulent, especially when it comes to harmless player preferences like race or class. As an unabashed fan of dragonborn, I can tell you right now, GMs casually invent reasons for why my preferences are badwrongfun all the time, and seem quite proud of having done so. Even WotC staff made jokes about doing so, though the blog post in question has been deleted in one of Wizards' many site changes.

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

Indeed! And I assert far, far too many GMs spend an excess of their time looking for a reason to say no, rather than looking for a reason to say yes. I am a strident advocate for supporting earnest, good-faith player enthusiasm, and supporting that means looking for reasons to say yes. If you truly, genuinely cannot find one, cannot even find a compromise "yes, and...", "yes, but...", or "no, but..." solution, well, that's unfortunate but at least you tried. More importantly, if you did sincerely try, it should almost always be possible to reach at least a "no, but..." compromise, again presuming earnest, good-faith player enthusiasm, aka enthusiasm, which is neither exploitative, abusive, nor coercive.

I don't see any difference between "finding a reason to say no" and "flipping through my 150-page binder of setting notes written 20 years ago to point to the passage that says no." Both involve no actual effort on the part of the GM to establish why the answer is no. Both, like poor Soviet's example above, involve saying no because it ensures the GM gets their way, not because saying no actually makes sense or follows naturally from the information available to the players. Note available to, not perfectly omnisciently known by. Player ignorance through failure to reasonably investigate is fine, player ignorance through failing to jump through 17 obscure hoops or memorize a 100-page setting book is not fine.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Sorry, I assumed from my previous texts that the DM is not making things up on a whim. They are setting plot points and inciting events into notion, ones they have planned. This is not a case of the DM setting a more linear story into motion.

In a game that people spend, on average, 8 hours a month playing. A game where combat will often take approximately 1/2 of those hours. A game, where sometimes, buying 50' rope can turn into a 10 minute RP session. A game where there are often plot points or exploration points that need to be decided and/or dealt with. And a game that has four to six players, all with backgrounds and aspirations. How often do you think the DM should try?
I mean two or three scenarios, at best, is probably all they would have time for. And if the player takes none of it? Should they keep trying?

This is often a sticking point for me, so I am going to dig my heels in a bit. Everyone preaching about what DMs should do almost never look at the in-game time. And when it is pointed out, they either hand-wave it by saying, it doesn't take long, or they insist on these non-realistic time perimeters, such as, "Our group's 8th level combat only takes seven minutes." Yet, when asked to show proof of any of this, they never do. They actually, never can.

So, I get your point. I do think the DM should try. But, every time a DM tries, and the player doesn't bite is also a time that takes away from others - and game-time is not unlimited!

To use an analogy, it's the couch-coaches of the world. "These players should be stronger, if I were coach, I would have them in the weight room. These players should have more endurance. If I were coach, I would have them running all the time. These players should have better fundamentals. If I were coach, we'd be drilling fundamentals every day. These players should have tricks up their sleeve. If I were coach, I'd be practicing all sorts of tricks. These players should have more creative styles. If I were coach, I'd have them do drills that increased their creativity."

There is only so much practice time for coaches, just like there is only so much prep time, and more importantly, play time for a D&D group. Therefore, a table sometimes needs to decide what to focus on. And sometimes, that comes at the expense of not incorporating a background.

Sorry for the rant. But when this time piece is ignored, it really "grind my gears." (But we are in agreement, the DM should try.)

No need to apologize. It’s a legit, tangible concern. And honestly, time is a huge factor in why I’ve come to run games this way. I don’t have the time or inclination to spend as much time in between sessions coming up with the amount of material I used to.

I’ve learned to lean on my players a lot. To use their characters as much or more than my prep. It’s not a shift I made all at once, but I did it more and more. And the thing is, there’s like a feedback loop. You run the game this way, the players respond, then you do more, they respond with more, and with a little time your game is nearly running itself.

This is just a different approach than the more classic one of preparing everything ahead of time. It allows for the flexibility needed to let the players drive. And the more the players drive, the more invested they are, and the more agency they tend to have.

Their characters aren’t the icing on the cake, they’re the flour. They’re baked in, not added on top after the cake is made. The game is about them.

Again, this doesn’t make a game inherently better. It’s all a matter of preference. I ran games the way you describe for decades. Over time, due to both necessity and desire, I started looking for something different. Doesn’t mean everyone wants to do that.

Players doing whatever that want =/= more agency. Agency = having choices matter, and failure is very often a result that matters, even if that failure came without a roll from the player.

In what other game would you describe a legal move being denied by the referee as an example of player agency?

 

[Maxperson]

In what other game would you describe a legal move being denied by the referee as an example of player agency?

Whatever I want =/= legal player move in the game of D&D. Player moves are pretty much contingent on various other rules and situations.

 

[Mort]

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

How can the PLAYER tell the difference between the 2? Much of the time they look EXACTLY the same.

I'll give one answer:

Trust. If the player trusts that the DM has the best interests of the game at heart - then he will assume it's the second case and there will likely be no problem. But if there is no trust? Then the player is likely to assume the first case - and problems WILL ensue. I suspect this is part of the OPs actual issue.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Yep. Suppose a background said you can always find eggs and the group ended up on a demiplane with no life(and never had life) at all.

Great. "You may have a seat on this council, but we do not grant you the title of Master." That is the actual position you're taking on this.

Is there any wonder people side eye such things?

I just find it so hard to believe that so many GMs just...want to find reasons not to let people do things. And yet I get repeated evidence that that is exactly what they want. Why? What do you get out of treating every other attempt to actually USE character features as totally pointless?

 

[pemerton]

How can the PLAYER tell the difference between the 2? Much of the time they look EXACTLY the same.

I'll give one answer:

Trust. If the player trusts that the DM has the best interests of the game at heart - then he will assume it's the second case and there will likely be no problem.

Speaking just for myself, trust is a red herring.

I don't care how much the GM has "the best interests of the game" - whatever exactly those might be - at heart. Nor whether the GM has some reason in mind that makes sense to them.

If the GM is deciding what does and doesn't happen, the GM is exercising agency over the fiction. And I, as a player, am not - even though the game rules tell me that this is a place where I am entitled to do that!

For me, that's it.