D&D General What is player agency to you?

[mamba]

Which reduces player agency

I never said it doesn’t, and so does to not let a char fly that is flapping their arms…

Player agency simply does not override everything else. That is all there is to it

 

[Aldarc]

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.

I'm sorry, but why can't I deny that narrative you are pushing?

And again, why are you turning it into some sort of zero-sum wargame? Our hobby is growing and you still want to frame the growth on the margins in areas of alternative play styles and preferences as "losing ground"? This "at war" mindset you seem to have adopted about our hobby, which permeates your language - e.g., losing ground, threatened, attack, etc. - is so puzzling to me. How on earth are these narrative games threatening you, your preferences, or what you choose to play at your table? You know what other subculture is growing in our hobby? The OSR movement and appreciation for old school style gaming.

Moreover, I was hoping for more specifics, especially regarding how 5e/One D&D is (somehow) becoming a more narrative game, but you seem more interested in this conspiracy theory-like mindset that perpetuates a false sense of victimhood rather than actually engaging a more concrete discourse about the shape and evolution of our hobby. It's kind of disappointing because I think that there is interesting conversation to be had there. But I don't think that conversation can get anywhere if you feel that you are fighting some "Lost Cause" crusade in our hobby against some imaginary threat to your personhood.

 

[soviet]

Player agency simply does not override everything else. That is all there is to it

What is the purpose of this statement? I haven't once said it does

 

[mamba]

What is the purpose of this statement? I haven't once said it does

the ‘the DM cannot deny an audience, because of this sentence’ crowd does, you are part of that, you use the specific example even

 

[Oofta]

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



The printed rule says different

You're ignoring everywhere that the DM is the referee, they create the world, the DM is in charge not the rules and so on. A lot of things in my world aren't written down, in many ways most of the game is improvised. But again, I'm not improvising a reason for an ability not to apply, I'm improvising what I think appropriate reactions of NPCs would be.

Let's say I have a sailor PC in the group, but they're all halfway around the world from their home base. If I had anticipated that the sailor PC might try to get passage on board a ship and written down that it's not possible it would be "okay"? But if I think about it for a moment when it happens because the entire session has gone in a direction I didn't anticipate (i.e. typical) and decide it won't work suddenly I'm playing the game wrong? What if I have the PC roll a percentile die because there's a slim possibility there's a ship with someone he knows? What if the PCs want to go to a port that's blockaded and no ships can get in?

I don't see why it matters. Ultimately the DM is the one making the call and deciding how the world works.

 

[soviet]

the ‘the DM cannot deny an audience, because of this sentence’ crowd does, you are part of that, you use the specific example even

Man what

Literally no-one has said the GM cannot.
People have said 'should not, if you want player agency to be greater, but you may value other things more'

 

[hawkeyefan]

the circumstances do a lot of heavy lifting here. Also, that is what ‘we’ are saying, ‘your side’ insists that there is no such thing as sufficient circumstances. That is what ‘we’ are arguing against

No, I said there may be. It'd be awesome if someone actually offered an example from play that would display it, rather than resorting to hypotheticals. But it seems no one can because the people who are more likely to shut it down don't even acknowledge the rules in the first place.

I realize you'll ignore the nuance in that, and instead place me back in the "always allowed" bucket, while simultaneously saying I've erroneously placed you in the "never ever" bucket, but that's where we're at. It's why I said "neener neener" in my last post to you... it seems we're past the point of having a reasonable discussion on this.

but it does make it unnecessary

So does not allowing it to work. The request for an audience doesn't sound like the most meaningful scene to roleplay out. But you know what likely would be? The actual audience. All the ability does is allow for the opportunity.

Plus, that can be said of any action taken. If the DM is not obliged to allow anything to happen... if he gets to pick and choose what may or may not happen, and which rules to honor or not... or which to interpret in such a way as to shut things down... then roleplaying may not be necessary for a variety of scenes.

agreed, it is initiated by the char / player, the difference is that the outcome is not ensured by them as well. In your version it is, in mine it isn’t, even though both versions result in the same outcome most of the time

How many other player side abilities do you deny in this way? Are players beholden to permission to cast a spell?

with agency you can only go to the inn if it exists there, it could be phrased as 'i try to find an inn', you're only determining what your character does,
with narrative control you're saying 'there is an inn that exists and i am going there', you're determining the world outside your character

Well, it goes back to trusting the players. People always talk about the need to trust the DM... but we need to trust the players, too. If it's been established that there's no inn in town, then no one should say "I go to the inn". Otherwise, who cares? Let there be an inn. What's that going to harm? Especially since whatever advantage the inn may offer is still something that the DM has huge say over.

Okay, you go to the inn. Sorry, there are no rooms. Sorry, there are no rumors. Sorry, there are no hirelings. Sorry, move along.

All these examples seem so petty, don't they? They're clearly about preserving the DM's predetermined details even if those details don't make a whit of difference.

 

[soviet]

You're ignoring everywhere that the DM is the referee, they create the world, the DM is in charge not the rules and so on.

None of this is inherently true, but it's also irrelevant to my point. These are all just things you value more than player agency.

 

[hawkeyefan]

You're ignoring everywhere that the DM is the referee, they create the world, the DM is in charge not the rules and so on. A lot of things in my world aren't written down, in many ways most of the game is improvised. But again, I'm not improvising a reason for an ability not to apply, I'm improvising what I think appropriate reactions of NPCs would be.

Let's say I have a sailor PC in the group, but they're all halfway around the world from their home base. If I had anticipated that the sailor PC might try to get passage on board a ship and written down that it's not possible it would be "okay"? But if I think about it for a moment when it happens because the entire session has gone in a direction I didn't anticipate (i.e. typical) and decide it won't work suddenly I'm playing the game wrong? What if I have the PC roll a percentile die because there's a slim possibility there's a ship with someone he knows? What if the PCs want to go to a port that's blockaded and no ships can get in?

I don't see why it matters. Ultimately the DM is the one making the call and deciding how the world works.

It seems everyone is ignoring something in the books.

Some folks are ignoring abilities that support player agency.

Others are ignoring phrasing that effectively eliminates player agency.

 

[mamba]

Man what

Literally no-one has said the GM cannot.
People have said 'should not, if you want player agency to be greater, but you may value other things more'

clearly you are not reading the same thread I do

So think about your game, and think about when play works in such a way that the player gets to tell the GM what happens… and crucially, cannot be vetoed… and that’s where the agency is.

Per the way the feature is described, it says nothing about attempting or a roll being needed or anything else.

The feature (position of privilege) allows exactly what it says - basically anywhere you happen to be. Stuck in the City of Brass (elemental plane of fire) - you can get an audience with a noble if you really want to.

I don't care if the GM's motive is to deny agency, or to preserve the integrity of the behind-the-scenes plotline they've invented.

What I do care about is that the GM is departing from the rules of play. I would probably leave that game.

probably plenty more, but you get the point I guess

And crucially

I gave an example earlier of how it could work: a traveller to the plane brought eggs with them.

It's not my game that has egg-detecting PCs in it. Any justification for that ability is of course going to be ridiculous. The point is you can always think of something.

You rather have a ridiculous justification than a denial of the player action... nothing more to say