D&D General What is player agency to you?

[Mort]

Yeah, to be honest I've never been comfortable with the rules aspects of background features. Seems to me we would be better off just working that kind of stuff out through RP rather than than calling out a rules widget and getting irritated when it isn't followed exactly.

Seems the designers agree with you. The newer backgrounds (Spelljammer, Dragonlance, I believe the 1D&D ones though not sure) all just have "you get X feat..." as their feature.

 

[pemerton]

why is the GM telling a story where the characters actions and choices can affect the larger world in which they exist? beyond what is within an immediate 60ft radius of them or for more than the next 48 hours?

Why is the GM telling a story? Good question!

Why is the GM having regard to the actions and choices of the players at the table in doing their job? Because that's what good GMing looks like, at least in my view.

 

[Oofta]

I fully agree, but I don't think what this back and forth is revolving around.

At its core - One side is just vehemently against, in D&D, a player being able to force the DM to say yes.

True. Because in other games there are limitations built into the game. Someone in a post long, long ago in this thread mentioned that in PbtA anything the player declares still has to make narrative sense is part of the rules. We don't have that spelled out in D&D because it's not an assumption that the player can force the DM to say yes.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This isn't correct.

There is almost never only one plausible or tenable extrapolation from a given bundle of "truths" about a fiction. The world can be consistent if the GM is not the only one who gets to establish elements of it. I know, because I play RPGs which (i) feature consistent worlds, yet (ii) I am not the only participant who establishes elements of them.

And I play RPGs where the GM makes those determinations, and the players make choices through their PC. And I wouldn't like the kind of game you play, I suspect, either as a player or a GM.

Can't we just leave it at that? Is any of this actually getting us anywhere?

 

[Micah Sweet]

This takes us back to what counts as D&D.

The last version of D&D that I played regularly was, in fact, designed to easily accommodate high player agency over the fiction.

And it's pretty much the only one. Still valid, of course, but I think at this point we all know 4e is the proud nail. And that's fine.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

why is the GM telling a story where the characters actions and choices can affect the larger world in which they exist? beyond what is within an immediate 60ft radius of them or for more than the next 48 hours?

That's not what I said, nor what I meant.

I'm saying, why is this specific incredibly narrow thing, of the noble being away, that somehow doesn't occur to the players or isn't known to them, and yet is a consequence of their actions? For real here. What benefit are they getting from having these weeks- to months-long things that apparently never occur to or are in any way observable by the characters, yet then snap into relevance when the players attempt to do a thing?

because the events happened outside the players direct sphere of awareness? i don't know about you but i'm not constantly aware of all the goings on of the next three towns over, it might of been alluded to and the players just didn't consider it important or relevant "after you rescuing the kidnapped prince from the neighboring kingdom i'm sure all the local nobles will have their hands full clearing up this political mess of an aftermath."
i'm not saying the noble couldn't or didn't leave someone to take messages, but that doesn't change that fact that they're not there and not available for the players.

What does that have to do with the difference between doing SOMETHING to say yes--even if in a different, reduced, or nuanced way--rather than simply saying no?

i don't believe the world should alter itself to make sure the player's intents go off without a hitch, the world simply exists, indifferent to their goals and plans, if the store is sold out of bread for the day when i too run out that doesn't mean more coincidentally gets delivered or found in the back of the stockrooms for my benefit.

So, you're doing that thing here. The bolded bit. That's a thing you invented. I never mentioned anything even remotely like that. In fact, I went out of my way to talk about how things would not be "without a hitch," and that the world would not "alter itself." Why are you inserting these things into what I said? This is getting perilously close to presuming bad faith.

it is bad faith to not inform the players of the information of their absence if the players never consider to inquire around themselves if the noble might be away before they visit them? these adventurers don't exactly have a perpetual newsfeed updating them of every change to the world that might influence their plans if they knew them.

It is bad faith for them to actively avoid information, yes. Why should players be so utterly uninterested in inquiry? Clearly they already know this noble in some way--you established that yourself by saying their actions directly led to this noble not being at home.

it is not the GM's fault to run a world that continues to exist and turn outside the immediate observation of the players, sure the doorkeep could've said 'sure here's a scroll of teleportation to take you all right to them' but some of us would feel that is unlikely and contrived

Again: Why do you invent these horrifically implausible examples, as though I am demanding something patently ridiculous? Why are you seeing these players as petulant children stamping their feet because "we want to see the noble NOW!!!", who could only be placated with blatant, stupid, contrived answers?

This is precisely why I get so frustrated. You are actively injecting extra bad-faith expectations from the players here!

sometimes we don't want to spend two minutes to come up with an alternate solution that's 'more favourable for the players' because we think the one we have makes pretty good sense to work how it does even if it's inconvenient to them.

And what solution is that? Because the so-called "solution" people keep telling me is that it just doesn't work. No alternative. No second option. Just straight-up, unadorned no-sell on the effort.

(Edit: I am letting these slide, for now, in the context of the offered vow from earlier. Just in case. Better to keep it longer than is warranted than break it too early.)

 

[Micah Sweet]

And even in 5e, many of the background traits are quite nicely set up as flat declarative abilities that always work. I was disappointed they didn't go on to expand that with a big book of backgrounds, additional background slots for martial characters, and paragon and epic tier traits that reflect what kind of deeds you've accomplished or what kind of ordeals you've suffered

I really don't like how background features are designed in 5e, for exactly the reasons you apparently like them. Moves design in a direction I don't care for.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What do you mean by establishing fiction as a player via your PC's actions?

I get the impression that you mean prompting the GM to extrapolate new fiction from your action declarations for your PC. And that is not enough agency for me. I don't play RPGs to learn what the GM thinks should happen next. I don't GM RPGs to tell the players what happens next.

Well, despite your deeply partisan interpretation of what I said, it sounds like personal preference to me. Fair enough, game on.

 

[mamba]

But I think that's different from 'now that you ask, hmm, no I think the duke would be away right now because of XYZ'. That's not having additional information.

I agree, that also never was the reason I gave for why the audience is denied

If you just make up something because you do not want the audience to happen, then you should let it happen. If you have a good reason for why it could be denied, then think about whether it is granted, and how that reason affects the audience playing out, or choose to actually deny it.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Public Service Announcement for DMs who want to tell their story without the input of the other players:

Publishing to major ebook retailers is 100% free. From Nook to Kobo to god forbid Amazon. Hand to god, zero dollars. And you can get the appreciation of upwards of tens of people instead of a captive audience of 4-5.