D&D General What is player agency to you?

[mamba]

My post clearly started with the statement that the character had the relevant ability.

we disagree on this being the case. You can try, you do not get to decide that you succeed. Frequently you will, but that is still not always / up to you only.

Note also that this is yet another assumption of childish bad faith on the part of the player.

no, it is an extreme example to illustrate a point. Neither of us is expecting exactly this to happen, it only serves to illustrate that the player can not simply declare that something happens, and not being able to do so does not take away their agency. It limits it, sure, but as I said, I see no issue with that.

 

[soviet]

we disagree on this being the case.

We disagree on the opening sentence of my post? What?

You can try, you do not get to decide that you succeed. Frequently you will, but that is still not always / up to you

The printed rule says different

 

[Scott Christian]

If I put a dragon in a void, it's still a dragon. If I put a noble in a vacuum, it is not. What makes it noble is not internal to it but relative to something else that makes it noble. You can only be noble relative to something else.

Dragons being able to fly is disanalogous to nobility.

You're equivocating as to what is meant by nobility. Having the personality trait of nobility is not the same thing as having the social rank of nobility. So while a hero might have the internal trait of being noble as per the adjective, that does not make them noble as per the noun.

This is why your examples aren't analogous.

I mean, isn't this the classic case of the princess being removed from the kingdom with no money, and suddenly she starts acting like everyone else: stealing, pilfering, conning, and eating slum food, etc.?

The princess is no longer a princess, she is a street urchin.

 

[mamba]

We disagree on the opening sentence of my post? What?

I went back to your post I quoted, it said nothing like that at all… I was talking about the context but yes, I guess we do disagree about your opening sentence

The printed rule says different

I still do not care what the printed rule says. First of all, we already disagree on how to interpret it, second even with your interpretation I say that a DM can override it, given the right circumstances. It is a guideline, not a law

 

[soviet]

The rules says that a particular character type can do X.

Here you go @mamba

 

[soviet]

I still do not care what the printed rule says. First of all, we already disagree on how to interpret it, second even with your interpretation I say that a DM can override it, given the right circumstances. It is a guideline, not a law

Which reduces player agency

 

[Micah Sweet]

Again, those background feature that are being discussed are likely going away in One D&D. I'm not really sure what other "threatening behavior" D&D 5e, whether it's the kitten or gorilla, has demonstrated when it comes to greater player agency outside of your preferences.


From what I read in the quickstart, Candela Obscura stripped out a lot of the player-facing agency from Blades in the Dark in favor of a more traditional GM-curated gaming. I talked about some of the changes that I observed on the Candela Obscura thread. We have yet to see how Daggerheart actually plays out. It may look like it takes some mechanical or presentation cues from narrative games, but what matters is GM vs. player authority when it comes to establishing the fiction.


We are but a tiny storm in a teacup.


We can co-exist. There's nothing gained by treating this as a zero sum game.

We can co-exist so long as both styles are respected, but you can't deny that classic or trad or neo-trad is losing ground in the mainstream, including the "800 lb gorilla", in favor of narrative, and have been for years. Given that, I see no compelling reason not to promote my point of view. The narrative people have certainly expressed theirs, often to the point of defensiveness.

 

[Micah Sweet]

We disagree on the opening sentence of my post? What?



The printed rule says different

Which is why I contend the printed rule is a problem.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Which reduces player agency

That agency in this case is something that, in my opinion, is not the role of the player to possess in the first place. It belongs to the DM.

 

[mamba]

Here you go @mamba

thanks, the post I replied to started with

It's been said at the table, written down in the GM's notes, or definitively decided by the GM in advance. But not 'I guess they would have...' reasoning after the fact.