D&D General What is player agency to you?

[mamba]

Not really. The text says you can do it. We've looked at similar instanced of PC abilities phrased similarly, and I expect that instances of and inclination toward denying those will be drastically lower.

we had a bunch compared to the noble earlier, and they all were weaker, ‘local’ makes a lot more sense as ‘where you are from’ when you consider that

"Literally anywhere"? The players can have their characters go literally anywhere? Or are they limited by the places you allow them to go?

anywhere they find themselves, obviously

Because going from 98% of all authority in the game to 97% is probably less noticeable than going from 3% to 2%.

I disagree with the percentages when it comes to authority, but not when it comes to work

 

[Maxperson]

Of course that's true, but does it matter? If everyone's expectations are aligned, then there's no issue. As has been said, this kind of stuff is all a matter of preference.

My point is talking about "forcing" people as you've chosen to interpret it doesn't address the point that was made. That point being that many folks just don't want the DM to be obliged to honor the player's actions. They want to reserve the right to block those actions, even when they are acceptable per the rules.

Of course it matters. If expectations don't align, something went wrong and someone should go find a group where expectations align. You don't get to expect the DM to conform to you or vice versa unless expectations were established at the outset.

Obviously, there are always exceptions. When I first mentioned Background Features, I said if a DM denied its use, he better have a really good reason. Most such reasons that have been offered are either absurd (the lifeless plane nonsense) or else not very compelling (the duke is vacationing).

The lifeless plane was not only not nonsense, it had specific purpose which I stated. It was direct at the folks saying the ability should always work. If that's their expectation, then they believe it should work on the lifeless plane. If they don't think it should work on the lifeless plane, then they don't think it should always work.

That answer to that detail is critical, because if they truly do believe in always and that it should work on a lifeless plane, then rational discourse can't happen and I should bow out. If they don't believe in always, then we can start working towards finding out where the line should be drawn where it's okay not to allow the ability to work.

As for the duke vacationing, I do find that compelling. Is the duke expected to know from wherever he is that a noble is knocking and grant that person the right to stay? His staff likely don't have the authority to do it. That's the problem with "compelling." It's subjective.

Everyone objecting to the Background Features has danced around it, and nearly said it, but it really seems to boil down to they want their decisions and ideas to matter more than anyone else's.

No. That's patently false. It almost surely has nothing to do with wanting their ideas to matter more. I can decide that the most logical response is that the noble is refused for whatever valid reason without wanting my decisions to matter more than yours. You don't get to ascribe motivations for to us for why we do things. We get to tell you OUR motivations.

40 years of playing and DMing and not once have I ever thought to myself, "Self, I want my ideas to matter more than anyone else's, so I need to make X decision."

The rules put the decision making on me for D&D and no rule is without exception. Specific beats general and a specific circumstance such as the duke not being home beats the general ability.

And if we look at it like that and consider the DM's significant authority regarding what the game will be about, application of the rules, and application of their own judgment to apply those rules and processes.... then we combine that with the idea that the players can't be trusted with even a sliver of authority that comes up in very specific circumstances... yeah, it's hard to see it as anything but an argument to preserve DM authority.

Well, sure. If you fictionalize motivations for us that just plain aren't there like "Wanting our ideas to matter more than yours" and "players can't be trusted," then sure your false attributions will make it hard for you to see this as anything but "an argument to preserve DM authority."

Reality matters, though, and the reality is that those motives are not something you can force upon us. When you try you fail and just make yourself look really bad. Don't do it. Respond to what we say, not motives you are inventing in your head.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Because they think one or more players will enjoy it? I've certainly done that on occasion. (Though "force" is an overly strong word but "motivate against my own preferences" wouldn't be).

I intend to get some sleep, so I have other things to reply to for later, but this one's quick.

That's a reason to do something you wouldn't do for yourself. But it's still what you want to do. Because, in this case, it turns out that making your players happy is what you want to do.

Which is why I am harping on this point so much. Whatever happens is because it's what the GM wants to do.

So that means, if the GM is shutting players down....what are we to conclude from that? This is why I advocate for something like, "Keep logic in mind, but do the absolute most you can." Whereas the constant. Incessant. Never-ending. Dogged. Insistence. that the GM always has an out to say no, always has a good reason, always knows best, always can say "it's not guaranteed," etc., etc., etc.

It doesn't feel, at all, like these interpretations are open. It doesn't feel, at all, like these things are welcoming diverse and interesting and unexpected player input. It sounds, very much, like this is closed-ended. Like unless the player hews extremely closely to what the GM expects, they aren't gonna get anything. Despite the 5e Background features in question being very broadly worded, by intent, they get interpreted in extremely narrow ways. "Local nobilty" is presumed to be only the ones who rule over your home area, not the much more natural (and clearly intended) "the low-level, local nobility of wherever you happen to be." It explicitly says that if you go somewhere, people presume that you have a good reason to be there. Etc. These things are quite clear that they are broad, but they always, always get chipped down, further and further, until they're little more than suggestions--and just as casually dismissed.

 

[Mort]

you take local a bit too far I’d say the neighboring nobles also qualify. Your liege lord or similar too. Then you can argue relatives etc from there, but literally anywhere? no….

Or wherever you are you can meet with "a local noble..." As in a noble local to that area. Easily as valid an interpretation.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I intend to get some sleep, so I have other things to reply to for later, but this one's quick.

That's a reason to do something you wouldn't do for yourself. But it's still what you want to do. Because, in this case, it turns out that making your players happy is what you want to do.

Which is why I am harping on this point so much. Whatever happens is because it's what the GM wants to do.

I think the problem is, at least for me, is that "want" the way you're using it is doing overly heavy lifting in that sentence. I do a number of things in my life that I would not characterize as my "wanting" to do, but I'm not being forced to. Choosing the lesser of two evils is not "wanting" that choice. If you feel obliged to do something, that doesn't mean you "want" to do it.

If you used the term "chose" I'd be less picky here.

 

[Micah Sweet]

A confound that's been permeating this thread - Player agency vs. Player narrative control. In D&D especially, they are not necessarily interchangeable.

Player agency: The ability of the player, through their PC, to affect/influence the world around them. Generally also thought of as the ability of the player to have their PC make choices that "matter."

Player narrative control: The ability of the player to directly affect the game world in some manner. There are few examples of this in D&D. Player authored quests (4e) can be one. 5e backgrounds, if interpreted a certain (clearly disputed in this thread) way are another.

I do think it's worth separating the two for purposes of discussion. Though I would bet certain folks (I'd bet @pemerton, for example) would argue that they are linked enough that they SHOULD NOT be separated.

Edit to add: I would also bet that other's (willing to bet @Oofta for example) would heartily contend that their games feature PLENTY of player agency (ability to affect current and future events, choices that matter etc.) while deliberately and heavily veering away from any kind of player narrative control.

Thoughts?

Very much agree. Player agency and player narrative control are two different things and should not be linked, let alone equated.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Okay, let's take a step back.

I have said, repeatedly (I can dig up links, if you really want them, but I doubt you do), that there really might occasionally be times when that's the only option. I really did say that!

My problem is, people act like this is pretty common. E.g. it'll happen many, many times in a single campaign--perhaps several times a session even. That, to me, sounds like a pretty big problem. Hence why I have used phrases like "we should be looking for a reason to say yes, not looking for a reason to say no." I feel pretty frustrated, further, when anything I say about how something can actually work, and is in fact helpful and productive, is instantly dismissed as being unrealistic BS, as opposed to something meaningful and consistent (because, guess what, I care about world consistency to! I just recognize that that is one food group among several, not to be abandoned, but not be obsessed over to the exclusion of other incredibly vital nutrients!)

I gave my example of time-travel audience-seeking because the argument I saw looked like--no more and no less--"this is obviously stupid, we all agree it's obviously stupid, so that means we've established a hard line." But I don't agree with that. This alleged hard line isn't there. You have made a leap, here, from "I, mamba, don't think that makes sense" to "it's inherently unbelievable, it doesn't matter if you happened to make it believable for you, it never ever could be for me."

I'm saying--maybe, possibly, potentialy--think about how such a thing might actually be believable, in an open-minded context?

Nobody--neither me nor my players--"changed" anything to have such a time-travel audience happen. Nothing was warped or twisted. It required no stupid inconsistencies, and certainly didn't turn the world into this trivial "Here guys, I'll give you absolutely everything you ever ask for, without any effort, no matter how little sense that makes, because that's totally awesome right?!?!"

It's frankly a little bit insulting, the way you've characterized this--that my game is somehow valueless, meaningless, inconsistent, boring, challenge-free. Merely a trite, flat exercise in wish-fulfillment, without any care whatsoever for having a world that "exists" in some fictional sense. I actually try very very hard to make a world that DOES have such durability, that DOES follow logic, that DOES act under rules. I encourage my players to work out the rules, and the exceptions. They delight in looking back and saying, "Oh. OH! It...it was like that all along, wasn't it? I just couldn't see it before. But it was always there!"

I think you have been reading your last statement into other people's comments when it's just not there.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You significantly underestimate the social cost of disengaging from a social activity.

As someone with social anxiety, I can tell you, this is a very serious cost. I have, more than once in my life, felt unable to pay it--even though the activity in question had become not at all enjoyable, and I would have walked away if I had the spoons and the social capital to pay such a price.

Fair enough but, again, what can you do? You can't make the DM run the way you want, and you can't make the players play the way you want. If talking it out doesn't work, your options are deal with it or leave, on either side.

 

[mamba]

Whatever happens is because it's what the GM wants to do.

So that means, if the GM is shutting players down....what are we to conclude from that?

that the DM did not want that thing to happen, for whatever reason.

This is why I advocate for something like, "Keep logic in mind, but do the absolute most you can." Whereas the constant. Incessant. Never-ending. Dogged. Insistence. that the GM always has an out to say no, always has a good reason, always knows best, always can say "it's not guaranteed," etc., etc., etc.

Should we then conclude from your post that the DM is never allowed to not make something happen the players want to do? It’s in his power, so the only reason for it to not happen is that he wants to spoil the player’s fun?

 

[mamba]

Or wherever you are you can meet with "a local noble..." As in a noble local to that area. Easily as valid an interpretation.

either one is possible, I am not sure I would consider it as valid, otherwise I could not really say that this one makes less sense to me