D&D General What is player agency to you?

[dave2008]

TV, internet, planes, etc. have a lot to do with that… this is definitely not how it would have been in the middle ages, some special groups like the Masons, agreed, but other than that…

of course we are not talking about the middle ages. Really almost anything is possible in D&D.

 

[dave2008]

I absolutely think it is about why the audience is denied. And, further, that this is driving at the heart of the issue.

You can, very nearly always, find a way. And very nearly always, that way won't actually require that much effort. So, if it can very nearly always be done and done without that much effort, what is the reason for adamantly saying no? What benefit is gained from saying, "Nope, it's not worth my time to support this"? Because it sounds to me like the main benefit is not having to care about what your players have chosen and not having to adjust around choices you didn't expect.

I think the main issue is that being a DM is difficult and some DM's can't improvise well. Thus, they shut things down that they didn't anticipate. Is that ideal no, but it is a thing. It took me about 20 years to improvise and go with the flow well. Not all DMs have that luxury of time.

 

[mamba]

of course we are not talking about the middle ages. Really almost anything is possible in D&D.

well, we also weren’t not talking about them. This was a universal statement, no ‘but in some worlds’ or whatever was attached, despite this probably at best applying in a small minority of worlds / campaigns.

 

[CreamCloud0]

if the noble isn't home due to having to travel away as direct result of player actions 7 sessions ago and the consequences thereof,
if it has been in the GM's notes for 6 sessions that the noble won't be home for 2 months,
if the players only decided to visit the noble at his manor 3 sessions ago (well before those 2 months have passed in game),
if the players make no effort to learn that/there is no logical reason from the actions the players take to come to learn that the noble isn't home,

then is it still the GMs fault that the noble isn't at his manor when the players visit it?

 

[Aldarc]

of course we are not talking about the middle ages. Really almost anything is possible in D&D.

This is the thing. D&D is not even remotely representative of how things are in the Middle Ages. One of the most defining features of the European Middle Ages was the institution of the Church and its theological worldview. Its absence changes everything! Magic changes everything! People playing D&D often have very modern outlooks, attitudes, methods, and solutions when they play the game. Applying notions of realism about the European Middle Ages to D&D is about like trying to apply realistic notions of modern warfare to Fortnight or Team Fortress 2.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

I am with Mort on most of this. I have seen teenagers do it. Sometimes, like Mort said, because they are afraid the scene is ruined or it gives something away. I have also seen them do it because they feel they have lost control of the table (or they have). Both of these are always related to high school hierarchy and where they fall in it.
Mort and I differ in that I have never seen a DM over the age of 18 do it. That is just my experience though.

 

[Scott Christian]

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.

Wait, so you actually believe the DM just hand waved this? Even though in the examples there was probably going to be some clear roleplay, or at the least, some narrative, that explained to the character why. Even if it was as simple as: "You walk up and declare your house and title to the 8 efreet fanatical guards that stand at the entrance door to the massive courtyard. They look confused and tell you to leave, booming: "The Sultan sees who he wants!"

A literal short scene. Or the DM saying out of game: "You know, this place is so big, so grand, and so powerful, you get the feeling the efreet guards that you need to get by don't care about your title. In fact, if you mention your title near the guards, they seem even more indifferent."

Or the DM saying: "Well, I looked at that feature and I am afraid it doesn't work here. It says locally and I read that as near your home. If you want, we can discuss it later and get a clearer picture. But for the sake of the game, just know it doesn't work here, in Brass City."

Did you seriously think the DM, after all our discussions, just said: "You can't even try to do that." And also would refuse to listen to the player's counterargument? Did you really believe that?

 

[pemerton]

To me - there's no way to change this scenario to be higher player agency without also taking away the players agency to explore the DM authored world? If you think there is, i challenge you to show me how.

I don't think there is.

I can't see the difference between what you say, and the following:

*If I get to make a decision about where you and I go for a holiday, then that takes away my agency to find out where FrogReaver would like to take us for a holiday.​

Or

*If I get to make a decision about what the story is about (eg I ask you to tell me a ghost story), then that takes away my agency to find out what sort of story you would have told me if left to your own devices.​

I mean, yes, in a high player agency game, players don't get to find out what sort of fiction another person's exercise of agency would result in. That seems fairly obvious. I think @hawkeyefan made the same point several pages upthread.

 

[Scott Christian]

I would hope there is something at stake, if we're going to spend 10 minutes on it! I'm not really a big fan of low-stake, just-for-colour roleplaying through this sort of thing.

You would hope. Hmm...

But what happens if player agency really wants to spend ten minutes talking to Goo'gal'ee, owner of Goo'gal'ee's Shop of Mundane but Pragmatic Items? What happens if he doesn't drive the story forward by any means because they are actually leaving town forever, but they want to hang out and listen to Goo'gal'ee tell them stories about his adopted goblin nephews and nieces? And what happens when player agency decides after doing all that, the paladin wants to check to see if Goo'gal'ee has some Pelor style decorative candles? And surprisingly, Goo'gal'ie does have candles in the shape of a little sunburst. And then the paladin spends ten more minutes trying to convert Goo'gal'ie to his god, Pelor.

It happens. DM prep. No DM prep. It happens. And the time falls through that hourglass.

Note: I am not mocking any of this play. I am just pointing out that I believe we have all seen it. Using @soviet definition, it can lead to more player agency questions, such as: "What happens when one player is over Goo'gal'ie, but the others are enjoying it? What happens when the DM says, "Goo'gal'ie says he has other things to do than talk and shoos you out the store." Does that limit the other players' agency? Does it increase the one who didn't want to spend time at the shop?

 

[FrozenNorth]

No. That's not my position. My position is that if logic says the ability should not work, it should not work.

Why would the player propose something that isn’t logical? It seems like your position is that if the player’s opinion and the DM’s opinion conflict, the DM’s opinion should prevail regardless of which is more logical.

Suppose the party is in a normal forest. They are relatively low-level. The fighter (trained Athletics) chooses to climb a tree to get a better vantage point. The DM says it DC 20. The fighter’s player, an avid climber (while the DM isn’t) points out that climbing trees is pretty easy for a trained climber, and points out that since the purpose of climbing is just to get a better vantage point, he can just choose a different tree to climb.

Your position isn’t that the most logical position prevails. It’s that the DM’s position prevails, by dint of being DM.