D&D General What is player agency to you?

[Micah Sweet]

This is where I strongly disagree with @Mort. When I think of player agency, I think of the player's ability to affect the course of the gameplay. That may be through the character, but that may also be outside of the character. It's not that player agency is one thing and player narrative control is another. It's all part of player agency to me.

To me, equating the two gives someone who believes that more agency is inherently better an excuse to denigrate games that don't provide much in the way of player narrative control. I'd really like to avoid that.

 

[Aldarc]

To me, equating the two gives someone who believes that more agency is inherently better an excuse to denigrate games that don't provide much in the way of player narrative control. I'd really like to avoid that.

To me it’s about the descriptive accuracy of the term and not about your feelings or worries out of any sense of wounded pride or inferiority complex or inadequacy you may suffer or impart upon yourself from the notion that a game you like may not have as much player agency as another game.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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

So if someone’s playing a noble and the DM starts the game in an area other than their home, the ability is useless? Awesome! Sounds like player agency to me!

Also, if I ask you about your local weather, are you gonna tell me about how the weather is in your hometown, or where you are currently?

anywhere they find themselves, obviously

Yes obviously. And who designs the places they find themselves? The DM.

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

Well of course, that’s a big part of the issue… not relinquishing any authority means it’s all on the DM to be the creative force for the game. So they have to put more effort in… so that effort has to mean something… to they hold that effort above the ideas of the other participants…

It’s a vicious cycle.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well of course, that’s a big part of the issue… not relinquishing any authority means it’s all on the DM to be the creative force for the game. So they have to put more effort in… so that effort has to mean something… to they hold that effort above the ideas of the other participants…

It’s a vicious cycle.

My boss can reject my ideas, doesn't mean i'm not the creative force behind them.

 

[mamba]

So if someone’s playing a noble and the DM starts the game in an area other than their home, the ability is useless? Awesome! Sounds like player agency to me!

As I already wrote, I see a difference between the audience not being guaranteed and the feature / background being useless.

In your particular case I also see a difference between a player not being able to use their feature (which is a generous interpretation in your favor) and the player having no agency.

Yes obviously. And who designs the places they find themselves? The DM.

possibly, there are many campaigns where the players have a lot of say in this, even in ones where the audience is not guaranteed...

Well of course, that’s a big part of the issue… not relinquishing any authority means it’s all on the DM to be the creative force for the game. So they have to put more effort in… so that effort has to mean something… to they hold that effort above the ideas of the other participants…

because the player saying 'I insist on an audience' is doing a lot of the heavy lifting, give me a break

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

I mean it’s an obvious point and it doesn’t help the discussion. And it doesn’t address the original point.

We’ve all agreed that this is a subjective matter and if everyone is on the same page then there’s no issue.

And the social contract is only going to do so much. I donnt expect people will go line by line and ability by ability in the book and rubber stamp everything. I think most of the time, what’s written in the book is a good default expectation.

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.

It’s nonsense because if a plane is lifeless, then why would the player as about eggs or what have you? If a plane is lifeless, I’d expect that to be immediately obvious.

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.

No one’s saying always. But it’s a matter of why deny it? What is happening when the use of the ability is denied?

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.

There are no other local nobles? No members of the duke’s household that can step in? No other noble available? It doesn’t have to be a specific noble.

No. That's patently false. It almost surely has nothing to do with wanting their ideas to matter more.

Oh okay, my mistake because I thought you said stuff like…

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.

Well, stuff like that!

You don't get to ascribe motivations for to us for why we do things. We get to tell you OUR motivations.

I don’t really think we’re disagreeing about 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."

You just did it above. You just labeled it as “most logical”, but that’s an example of your idea (the one you deem logical) being given more importance than the player’s (the one you deem logical).

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 here you justify your choice to place your ideas ahead of other participants’.

Again, this is perfectly fine. It’s totally a valid and fun way to play.

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."

I’m not fictionalizing anything. I’m describing what you’re doing based on your own words.

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.

I am responding to what you are saying.

 

[mamba]

I donnt expect people will go line by line and ability by ability in the book and rubber stamp everything. I think most of the time, what’s written in the book is a good default expectation.

A default expectation is not a guarantee, so why do you insist on it being treated as one?

No one’s saying always. But it’s a matter of why deny it? What is happening when the use of the ability is denied?

Some very much do insist on the always, that is the whole point...

As to what happens when it is denied, up to the player, I can only tell you what isn't happening

 

[hawkeyefan]

My boss can reject my ideas, doesn't mean i'm not the creative force behind them.

Congrats!

As I already wrote, I see a difference between the audience not being guaranteed and the feature / background being useless.

In your particular case I also see a difference between a player not being able to use their feat (which is a generous interpretation in your favor) and the player having no agency.

In the instance of play, it’s useless and the player’s agency is thwarted.

It’s one instance, so yes, it doesn’t necessarily mean the player has no agency at all. But the inclination to deny it seems unlikely to be unique.

possibly, there are many campaigns where the players have a lot of say in this, even in ones where the audience is not guaranteed...

I’m sure that there are many campaigns where players are designing locations and NPCs but the DM blocks their ability to get an audience with an NPC.

because the player saying 'I insist on an audience' is doing a lot of the heavy lifting, give me a break

It’s an example of it, not the entirety. The selection of a background was cited earlier as being done just for the skills. When I run 5E, character background choice is responsible for like half my prep. Easily.

But that’s because I want the players’ choices to matter. I want the game to be about their characters specifically and not simply be my story featuring their characters… easily swapped out for others with little changing.

 

[mamba]

In the instance of play, it’s useless and the player’s agency is thwarted.

It’s one instance, so yes, it doesn’t necessarily mean the player has no agency at all. But the inclination to deny it seems unlikely to be unique.

Last I checked I said I have a good reason to deny it, that is not an inclination.

Do you generally permit every harebrained idea to succeed? Because that feels like where you are headed from where I am standing...

 

[Thomas Shey]

And the social contract is only going to do so much. I donnt expect people will go line by line and ability by ability in the book and rubber stamp everything. I think most of the time, what’s written in the book is a good default expectation.

I'll go as far to say that (barring deliberately generic wide-ranging systems where there may need to be some generic statements instead) if a GM is going to bar things from a rule book they should take the time to spell that out. I'm absolutely not going to ask about every game element, and I don't think its reasonable to be asked that I do.