D&D General What is player agency to you?

[hawkeyefan]

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

I’m not. When I first brought up background features I said the DM can deny them, but he better have a really good reason.

I haven’t really seen one yet.

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

I don’t mean in the game world for the characters, I mean for the game itself… for the participants. What’s happening at that level? What does that mean for agency?

 

[mamba]

I’m not. When I first brought up background features I said the DM can deny them, but he better have a really good reason.

seems we are in agreement then

I haven’t really seen one yet.

I spoke too soon

EDIT: now I am curious, can you give me a reason that would justify not getting an audience? I have my doubts that you can, so you are in the 'always' camp you claim you are not in

I don’t mean in the game world for the characters, I mean for the game itself… for the participants. What’s happening at that level? What does that mean for agency?

usually? they come up with a different idea. It means nothing for agency

It only means something for agency if it happens very frequently, but that is not the case

 

[Maxperson]

yes, if we ignore context, we get less sure about the meaning, it generally works like that

Backgrounds are discreet. They provide the context. For this background we have to step outside the context given and find other means of comparison.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Well, I also legitimately don't think they're the same, but thanks for the consideration.

 

[pemerton]

No, it's not. This isn't a question of 'realism', it's a question of internal consistency and whether or not something makes sense in the context of the game fiction.

Nobility being an internal trait makes at least as much sense, in the context of the game fiction, as dragons being able to fly.

Aragorn and Eomer; the Princess and the Pea; King Arthur drawing the sword; even Conan in the REH novella The Hour of the Dragon - nobility as internal trait is a huge part of the literary canon that D&D derives inspiration from.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I spoke too soon

EDIT: now I am curious, can you give me a reason that would justify not getting an audience? I have my doubts that you can, so you are in the 'always' camp you claim you are not in

I don’t know… I imagine such an example would be very specific. Actual play examples would probably be best. I can’t offer any because to the best of my recollection I’ve never denied the use of background feat.

I’m not saying there can never be such an example though.

usually? they come up with a different idea. It means nothing for agency

Sorry… that’s not what I meant.

I mean what’s happening at the game level in that moment?

The DM’s ideas and prep are winning out over the player’s ideas. That’s what’s happening.

Saying that has nothing to do with agency is wrong.

It only means something for agency if it happens very frequently, but that is not the case

No, it means in that moment, agency is thwarted.

That may or may not matter to a group. It may or may not be indicative of the rest of play.

 

[pemerton]

Not in authoring the fiction, no. But that's not the only kind of agency, or the objectively most important kind, especially for players.

Well I'm a player (sometimes) and its important to me. I'm also a GM (often), and player agency is important to me in that context also.

 

[pemerton]

The objection is clearly about the player being able to say something that obliges the DM to honor it.

yes, last I checked the players also complain when I tell them what their chars are doing

The notion that a GM "playing" the world is just like a player playing their PC, except the GM has unlimited authority to make stuff up about their "character" with no constraint or framework beyond their own idea of "what makes sense", is in my view a recipe for terrible GMing and bad RPG experiences.

 

[pemerton]

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.

in order to pre-empt, or at least attempt to pre-empt, confused or incorrect statements about how (say) Dungeon World works: in the RPGs I know that have higher player agency, the players cannot "alter game reality" in the way some posters in this thread are talking about. Rather, they establish their own goals and aspirations for their PCs (including working with the group collectively to establish the appropriate backstory and setting elements to underpin those goals and aspirations), and then the GM relies on those goals and aspirations as cues for their own narration of framing and consequence.

There may also be techniques that permit the players to declare actions or make decisions pertaining to their PCs' memories. This goes together with the players' establishing goals and aspirations, to overall produce characters that have "thicker" lives, relationships, etc than is typical of much D&D play.

I haven't changed my mind over the course of the week! So-called "player narrative control" is a furphy. I'm talking about RPGs that adopt completely mainstream allocations of role, like 4e D&D, Dungeon World and Burning Wheel.

In these games, players get to establish goals for their PCs, and declare actions for their PCs which put those goals, or elements of those goals, at stake. And the GM is obliged to have regard to that in their own framing and narration of consequence.

That's it.

 

[pemerton]

I don’t think this is unclear, the DM does, they are in a better position to / are the ones having more details by default

The "detail" is stuff that the GM has imagined but not shared. So by using it to judge what is "logical", the GM makes their conception of the fiction into the shared fiction. This is GM agency. Not player agency.