D&D General What is player agency to you?

[mamba]

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.

yeah, that is what I suspected.... to me that means you are in the 'always' camp

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.

yes, I don't think anyone ever thought otherwise

Saying that has nothing to do with agency is wrong.

saying it ruins agency is also wrong, it is a question of how often it happens

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

I'd say redirected, you do not lose your agency because some idea did not work

 

[Scott Christian]

Acolyte: You and your adventuring companions can expect to receive free healing and care at a temple, shrine, or other established presence of your faith, though you must provide any material components needed for spells.
Charlatan: You have created a second identity that includes documentation, established acquaintances, and disguises that allow you to assume that persona.
Criminal: You have a reliable and trustworthy contact who acts as your liaison to a network of other criminals. You know how to get messages to and from your contact, even over great distances; specifically, you know the local messengers, corrupt caravan masters, and seedy sailors who can deliver messages for you.
Entertainer: You can always find a place to perform, usually in an inn or tavern but possibly with a circus, at a theater, or even in a noble's court. At such a place, you receive free lodging and food of a modest or comfortable standard (depending on the quality of the establishment), as long as you perform each night. In addition, your performance makes you something of a local figure. When strangers recognize you in a town where you have performed, they typically take a liking to you.
Folk Hero: Since you come from the ranks of the common folk, you fit in among them with ease. You can find a place to hide, rest, or recuperate among other commoners, unless you have shown yourself to be a danger to them. They will shield you from the law or anyone else searching for you, though they will not risk their lives for you.
Guild Artisan:
As an established and respected member of a guild, you can rely on certain benefits that membership provides. Your fellow guild members will provide you with lodging and food if necessary, and pay for your funeral if needed. In some cities and towns, a guildhall offers a central place to meet other members of your profession, which can be a good place to meet potential patrons, allies, or hirelings.
Guilds often wield tremendous political power. If you are accused of a crime, your guild will support you if a good case can be made for your innocence or the crime is justifiable. You can also gain access to powerful political figures through the guild, if you are a member in good standing. Such connections might require the donation of money or magic items to the guild's coffers.
You must pay dues of 5 gp per month to the guild. If you miss payments, you must make up back dues to remain in the guild's good graces.
Hermit:
The quiet seclusion of your extended hermitage gave you access to a unique and powerful discovery. The exact nature of this revelation depends on the nature of your seclusion. It might be a great truth about the cosmos, the deities, the powerful beings of the outer planes, or the forces of nature. It could be a site that no one else has ever seen. You might have uncovered a fact that has long been forgotten, or unearthed some relic of the past that could rewrite history. It might be information that would be damaging to the people who or consigned you to exile, and hence the reason for your return to society.
Work with your DM to determine the details of your discovery and its impact on the campaign.
Noble: Thanks to your noble birth, people are inclined to think the best of you. You are welcome in high society, and people assume you have the right to be wherever you are. The common folk make every effort to accommodate you and avoid your displeasure, and other people of high birth treat you as a member of the same social sphere. You can secure an audience with a local noble if you need to.
Outlander: You have an excellent memory for maps and geography, and you can always recall the general layout of terrain, settlements, and other features around you. In addition, you can find food and fresh water for yourself and up to five other people each day, provided that the land offers berries, small game, water, and so forth.
Sage: When you attempt to learn or recall a piece of lore, if you do not know that information, you often know where and from whom you can obtain it. Usually, this information comes from a library, scriptorium, university, or a sage or other learned person or creature. Your DM might rule that the knowledge you seek is secreted away in an almost inaccessible place, or that it simply cannot be found. Unearthing the deepest secrets of the multiverse can require an adventure or even a whole campaign.
Sailor: When you need to, you can secure free passage on a sailing ship for yourself and your adventuring companions. You might sail on the ship you served on, or another ship you have good relations with (perhaps one captained by a former crewmate). Because you're calling in a favor, you can't be certain of a schedule or route that will meet your every need. Your DM will determine how long it takes to get where you need to go. In return for your free passage, you and your companions are expected to assist the crew during the voyage.
Soldier: You have a military rank from your career as a soldier. Soldiers loyal to your former military organization still recognize your authority and influence, and they defer to you if they are of a lower rank. You can invoke your rank to exert influence over other soldiers and requisition simple equipment or horses for temporary use. You can also usually gain access to friendly military encampments and fortresses where your rank is recognized.
Urchin: You know the secret patterns and flow to cities and can find passages through the urban sprawl that others would miss. When you are not in combat, you (and companions you lead) can travel between any two locations in the city twice as fast as your speed would normally allow.

In the blue corner, we have a jiu jitsu fighter with words. Able to tap people out with semantic choke holds. How will they choke out their opponents?

And in the red corner, we have a muay thai fighter with words. Able to knock people out with their clever punches. How will they knock their opponents out?

I mean, seriously read these things. The interpretation scale (at least in my opinion) is off the charts.

But all fighting puns aside, I am curious to see how the logic we've been applying to the noble feature applies to others.

 

[mamba]

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.

Yeah, but you already said you are not interested in playing that way, so that is just you being consistent.

 

[mamba]

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.

I see little difference to what 'we' are describing, apart from the 'obligated' part

 

[mamba]

The "detail" is stuff that the GM has imagined but not shared.

yes, I see no problem there, I doubt you have a campaign in which the players know as much as the DM either

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.

we agree what it is, we disagree about it being bad

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Then the solution simple. If you(players and DMs) have failed to establish a social contract, nobody has the right to any expectations. If you don't like it and the group/DM won't change, find a new group.

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.

Because it's not obvious that it has never had life. Or might have life that's not visible to the players. Or...

No one’s saying always.

I've seen it more than once in this thread.

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.

Only the lord of the manor can invite people in unless he's delegated the responsibility. There might be other local nobles, but they will be in other castles/manors in other places than this one.

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

Well, stuff like that!

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).

Man, a player doesn't even have to be involved for something to be rated the most logical. There are often multiple ways something can go. I'm fully capable of figuring out what is the most logical even if a player hasn't opined at all. Further, just because a player stated something logical, doesn't mean that the player agrees that his logic is greater. And further yet! I have have more information than the player does, so he will often not be able to see what I see.

At no time, though, is it about me wanting my ideas to be before player ideas. Just doesn't happen. I'm not that petty and competitive. So again, never ever in my life have I engaged in... "they want their decisions and ideas to matter more than anyone else's." when DMing.

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

So what. Still has nothing to do with the petty crap you're trying to attribute to me. You can have 10 people engage in the same act and have 10 different motivations for that act. You don't get to assign me a motivation.

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

Nope! You're inventing fiction about my motives. My words to not back up what you are falsely attributing to m.

 

[Maxperson]

Acolyte: You and your adventuring companions can expect to receive free healing and care at a temple, shrine, or other established presence of your faith, though you must provide any material components needed for spells.
Charlatan: You have created a second identity that includes documentation, established acquaintances, and disguises that allow you to assume that persona.
Criminal: You have a reliable and trustworthy contact who acts as your liaison to a network of other criminals. You know how to get messages to and from your contact, even over great distances; specifically, you know the local messengers, corrupt caravan masters, and seedy sailors who can deliver messages for you.
Entertainer: You can always find a place to perform, usually in an inn or tavern but possibly with a circus, at a theater, or even in a noble's court. At such a place, you receive free lodging and food of a modest or comfortable standard (depending on the quality of the establishment), as long as you perform each night. In addition, your performance makes you something of a local figure. When strangers recognize you in a town where you have performed, they typically take a liking to you.
Folk Hero: Since you come from the ranks of the common folk, you fit in among them with ease. You can find a place to hide, rest, or recuperate among other commoners, unless you have shown yourself to be a danger to them. They will shield you from the law or anyone else searching for you, though they will not risk their lives for you.
Guild Artisan:
As an established and respected member of a guild, you can rely on certain benefits that membership provides. Your fellow guild members will provide you with lodging and food if necessary, and pay for your funeral if needed. In some cities and towns, a guildhall offers a central place to meet other members of your profession, which can be a good place to meet potential patrons, allies, or hirelings.
Guilds often wield tremendous political power. If you are accused of a crime, your guild will support you if a good case can be made for your innocence or the crime is justifiable. You can also gain access to powerful political figures through the guild, if you are a member in good standing. Such connections might require the donation of money or magic items to the guild's coffers.
You must pay dues of 5 gp per month to the guild. If you miss payments, you must make up back dues to remain in the guild's good graces.
Hermit:
The quiet seclusion of your extended hermitage gave you access to a unique and powerful discovery. The exact nature of this revelation depends on the nature of your seclusion. It might be a great truth about the cosmos, the deities, the powerful beings of the outer planes, or the forces of nature. It could be a site that no one else has ever seen. You might have uncovered a fact that has long been forgotten, or unearthed some relic of the past that could rewrite history. It might be information that would be damaging to the people who or consigned you to exile, and hence the reason for your return to society.
Work with your DM to determine the details of your discovery and its impact on the campaign.
Noble: Thanks to your noble birth, people are inclined to think the best of you. You are welcome in high society, and people assume you have the right to be wherever you are. The common folk make every effort to accommodate you and avoid your displeasure, and other people of high birth treat you as a member of the same social sphere. You can secure an audience with a local noble if you need to.
Outlander: You have an excellent memory for maps and geography, and you can always recall the general layout of terrain, settlements, and other features around you. In addition, you can find food and fresh water for yourself and up to five other people each day, provided that the land offers berries, small game, water, and so forth.
Sage: When you attempt to learn or recall a piece of lore, if you do not know that information, you often know where and from whom you can obtain it. Usually, this information comes from a library, scriptorium, university, or a sage or other learned person or creature. Your DM might rule that the knowledge you seek is secreted away in an almost inaccessible place, or that it simply cannot be found. Unearthing the deepest secrets of the multiverse can require an adventure or even a whole campaign.
Sailor: When you need to, you can secure free passage on a sailing ship for yourself and your adventuring companions. You might sail on the ship you served on, or another ship you have good relations with (perhaps one captained by a former crewmate). Because you're calling in a favor, you can't be certain of a schedule or route that will meet your every need. Your DM will determine how long it takes to get where you need to go. In return for your free passage, you and your companions are expected to assist the crew during the voyage.
Soldier: You have a military rank from your career as a soldier. Soldiers loyal to your former military organization still recognize your authority and influence, and they defer to you if they are of a lower rank. You can invoke your rank to exert influence over other soldiers and requisition simple equipment or horses for temporary use. You can also usually gain access to friendly military encampments and fortresses where your rank is recognized.
Urchin: You know the secret patterns and flow to cities and can find passages through the urban sprawl that others would miss. When you are not in combat, you (and companions you lead) can travel between any two locations in the city twice as fast as your speed would normally allow.

In the blue corner, we have a jiu jitsu fighter with words. Able to tap people out with semantic choke holds. How will they choke out their opponents?

And in the red corner, we have a muay thai fighter with words. Able to knock people out with their clever punches. How will they knock their opponents out?

I mean, seriously read these things. The interpretation scale (at least in my opinion) is off the charts.

But all fighting puns aside, I am curious to see how the logic we've been applying to the noble feature applies to others.

In what way?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

Which....is what I have been saying all along.

That they are putting their wants--choices, goals, whatever word people want to use for it--ahead of their players'. Which is the problem at hand.

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?

This is something you've done at least three times now: I make a claim. You then take that claim and say, "Okay, so does that mean we must accept the most grotesque extreme version of that claim?" It's extremely tedious, especially because I'm pretty sure you yourself are one of the folks who have asked to avoid hyperbole.

So: Can you make this argument without hyperbole?

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.

Okay. Now I want you to consider:

• The way you have described how you view this feature sounds extremely narrow to me. You spoke, for example, of only allowing audiences with nobles with a very direct connection to the PC. That's not how the feature is written; it speaks in much more general terms. Can you see how such an interpretation would make me think you are not actually interested in giving me what is plainly written, but instead restricting things until only what you want is allowed to happen?
• You keep harping on this "guaranteed," "guaranteed," "guaranteed" thing. Step back just the tiniest, tiniest bit from that, please? Not "literally guaranteed absolutely no matter what." But more like, "if there is ANY way to make it happen that is still reasonable, I'll do it." Reasonableness remains relevant. But "reasonableness" here is something only to be invoked at dire need. I don't see it being treated as a "dire need" standard here. I see it being pulled out after a token effort--if even that much. That's a concern.
• You refer, here, to something that to me reads like a perfectly reasonable application, as you showing a significant--perhaps even extreme!--form of generosity. Again, that gives the impression that you feel the player's requests are impositions, unfair or inappropriate demands, which you are being terribly gracious to even entertain in the first place. This attitude is exactly what I am criticizing. I assert GMs should view generous interpretations as the default, which they should only deviate from when doing so would extract a truly unacceptable price. That is, since I apparently must specify this every time, ABSOLUTELY NOT the same as things being guaranteed. Instead, it means GMs should come to the conversation doing their damnedest to say yes, unless they truly cannot find a reason to do so....which is why I have said, repeatedly, the "we should be looking for a reason to say yes, not looking for a reason to say no."

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

Genuine question: Can you step back from such absolute hardline words like "guaranteed," allowing for nuance that I and others have explicitly referenced numerous times throughout this thread? Because it seems to me that you keep going back to the absolute most illogical extreme, and that's not actually what people are arguing. We are arguing for thoroughgoing generosity, where you seem to think generosity is an unnecessary olive branch the GM should remove on the regular; we are arguing for expansive interpretations, where you seem to think the best choice is always the most narrow interpretation; we are arguing for a gracious effort to meet halfway and find a solution that respects both player goal and world-consistency, where you seem to think that if there's ever an apparent conflict, it's a waste of effort to try to address it, so just focus on world-consistency, player goals are simply not important enough to try.

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

So, do you not see how this is in fact presuming bad faith on the player's part? Because that's what this is. You are describing a petulant child, not a mature adult seeking reasonable ends.

 

[bloodtide]

Then there should not be a game in the first place.

Only if we lived in a better world......

If you don't trust the players and the players don't trust you, what you have is an exploitation machine, each side trying to subvert and conquer the other. How is that enjoyable? How is that a pleasing thing to spend your precious time upon?

Well....it's not exactly equals. I'm a very experienced extreme harsh 'exploiter', and they are awkward fruit loops that don't have a row to hoe.

And they are only a 1/3 of the players.....

I would not tolerate such a thing if it was only for the hour, let alone a whole bloody summer!

Well...it is my game or no game.

For these players to pay full attention and engage in your lore to the extent that you expect? They need to trust that this will pay off.

We don't use that word "trust" the way you do.

Not that they'll "win" or succeed or whatever, but payoff in the sense that regardless of what happens it will be engaging, interesting and fun. Without that trust, even a short term campaign isn't going to be good for you or them.

I get "trust" is important to you....not so much me or the good players.

How many sessions is that? In my experience, even one session where you're miserable AND these players are miserable is probably too many.

I never said I was miserable. Only the bad players have problems.

 

[mamba]

Which....is what I have been saying all along.

no one ever disagreed with this

That they are putting their wants--choices, goals, whatever word people want to use for it--ahead of their players'. Which is the problem at hand.

No, they put the consistency of the world, as they see it, ahead of the player's ability to do whatever they want. We disagree on this being a problem.

This is something you've done at least three times now: I make a claim. You then take that claim and say, "Okay, so does that mean we must accept the most grotesque extreme version of that claim?"

ironic that you feel this way, because I feel like you already did this several posts earlier. I do think that your complaint about my 'insistence for the DM to have an out' does indicate that you want the DM to not have an out, and that you conflate my insistence that the DM always can have one with the DM always using one. I have been very consistent about this being a rare exception.

Okay. Now I want you to consider:

• The way you have described how you view this feature sounds extremely narrow to me. You spoke, for example, of only allowing audiences with nobles with a very direct connection to the PC. That's not how the feature is written; it speaks in much more general terms. Can you see how such an interpretation would make me think you are not actually interested in giving me what is plainly written, but instead restricting things until only what you want is allowed to happen?

no, my interpretation is clearly supported by what is written, in fact to me it is the more consistent / logical interpretation, as I have already explained.

I also did not say that these are the only audiences they can get, I said that these are the only guaranteed ones (if any are).

• You keep harping on this "guaranteed," "guaranteed," "guaranteed" thing. Step back just the tiniest, tiniest bit from that, please? Not "literally guaranteed absolutely no matter what." But more like, "if there is ANY way to make it happen that is still reasonable, I'll do it." Reasonableness remains relevant. But "reasonableness" here is something only to be invoked at dire need. I don't see it being treated as a "dire need" standard here. I see it being pulled out after a token effort--if even that much. That's a concern.

I see no difference, 1 / a very large number is still effectively 0, so you still insist on a guarantee. No, you will not get an audience whenever I can think of a way to make it happen. I am pretty sure I can always think of a way to make it happen, that does not mean I consider it reasonable.

Statements like these, where you basically say 'as long as the DM can think of a way to do it, they should do what the player wants' is to me that grotesque version of the claim you say I am making up and pushing against. I have no need to make it up, several people spell it out repeatedly.

• You refer, here, to something that to me reads like a perfectly reasonable application, as you showing a significant--perhaps even extreme!--form of generosity. Again, that gives the impression that you feel the player's requests are impositions, unfair or inappropriate demands, which you are being terribly gracious to even entertain in the first place. This attitude is exactly what I am criticizing. I assert GMs should view generous interpretations as the default, which they should only deviate from when doing so would extract a truly unacceptable price. That is, since I apparently must specify this every time, ABSOLUTELY NOT the same as things being guaranteed. Instead, it means GMs should come to the conversation doing their damnedest to say yes, unless they truly cannot find a reason to do so....which is why I have said, repeatedly, the "we should be looking for a reason to say yes, not looking for a reason to say no."

I am saying I am being generous to you, in this discussion, not the player, when I grant you that me not treating the feature as a guarantee is the same as me completely ignoring that feature (outside the 'local noble' application as I read it).

I can easily decide that while an audience is not a guarantee, you have a much better chance / easier time than someone who is not a noble.

Genuine question: Can you step back from such absolute hardline words like "guaranteed," allowing for nuance that I and others have explicitly referenced numerous times throughout this thread? Because it seems to me that you keep going back to the absolute most illogical extreme

I am going to an illogical extreme? Which is what, insisting that it is not a guarantee? That is exactly the point in question, we started this with some people insisting on it being a guarantee. I am glad that you agree that considering it a guarantee is an illogical extreme, because that is precisely my stance on it.

We are arguing for thoroughgoing generosity, where you seem to think generosity is an unnecessary olive branch the GM should remove on the regular; we are arguing for expansive interpretations, where you seem to think the best choice is always the most narrow interpretation; we are arguing for a gracious effort to meet halfway and find a solution that respects both player goal and world-consistency, where you seem to think that if there's ever an apparent conflict, it's a waste of effort to try to address it, so just focus on world-consistency, player goals are simply not important enough to try.

You are not arguing for this, certainly not a 'we'. There were several posters who absolutely considered it a guarantee, to the point that at least one said they would leave the table if they did not get it.

So, do you not see how this is in fact presuming bad faith on the player's part? Because that's what this is. You are describing a petulant child, not a mature adult seeking reasonable ends.

No, asking for an audience is not bad faith, absolutely insisting on one is. You tell me whether insisting on one to the point of leaving the game over it is acting in good faith and the behavior of a mature adult or that of a petulant child.

Could I give in, absolutely. Is not doing so petulant, possibly, I am not blind. None of this changes that the insistence and leaving the game over it is absolutely the same as an insistence for the audience to not happen. Theoretically it is worse, as there tends to be an unspoken agreement to defer to the DM in decisions like this.