D&D General What is player agency to you?

[mamba]

No, I said there may be.

and yet you were unable to think of any, so I decided to take this as 'there aren't', because in reality it is that

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

yes, because there is a wide gap between 'rarely' and 'always', there isn't between 'I cannot think of any and I have not seen any' and 'none'

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

I am pretty sure this was explained repeatedly, not just by me. Is another char or an NPC involved? Not the char's decision alone.

 

[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.

Daggerheart appears to share a great deal of DNA with the PbtA family of games, as a current thread indicates.

As far as the rest goes, it doesn't have to be a war, but the best way to avoid that in my opinion is to avoid trying to change games that use a classic or trad or neutral model to make them more narrative, but instead to make and promote narrative games alongside more traditional styles of play. The background features we have been discussing, as well as mechanics like inspiration, push toward a narrative agenda for D&D. I have no problem with these mechanics existing in games designed for them, but I don't like them in D&D and see no reason for them to be there from a design point of view.

And yes, I know 4e had some of these things, but as I've said before that game, which is quite well-designed in its own right, would have been better off with a name other than D&D.

 

[mamba]

Some folks are ignoring abilities that support player agency.

Others are ignoring phrasing that effectively eliminates player agency.

The former are pointing out that the abilities do not exist in a vacuum and that the other sentence allows them to do so. The latter actually ignore that part.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.



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.



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



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.

Deciding to cast a spell has nothing to do with anyone else but the PC making that decision.

 

[Oofta]

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.

I disagree. But you didn't answer my question. Is it okay if I have a reason for not allowing an ability because I have happen to have the reason written down? Why would it matter? How specific does it need to be for it to be okay?

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.

Players do stuff I don't anticipate all the time. I'm perfectly okay with that because my players have a lot of options and a lot of agency to do what they want. But it still has to be practical in any given situation.

 

[Maxperson]

What’s the difference?

If I say “My character goes to the inn” how is that not narrative control?

The result of the action is the narration. You declare that you are going to the inn. The DM narrates the results of that action which will typically, but not always be that you go to the inn.

The Noble Feature and similar allow me to declare that I seek an audience. The DM should be obliged to grant that, barring sufficient circumstances.

5e doesn't oblige the DM at all. The DMG grants that he controls the world and that the rules serve him, not the other way around. The rules are obliged to cave in to him when he wishes.

If I say “my character casts fireball” the DM is obligated to say what happens per the rules.

Again, barring any change by the DM per the DMG.

Now the DM should have good reason if he's going to change a rule like with fireball and the noble feature, but those reasons don't have to be as rare as hens teeth.

 

[Scott Christian]

All that has been argued is that sometimes circumstances allow a DM to say no to a background's feature. Sometimes circumstances allow a DM to diminish a class's strengths. And I am going to add another - sometimes circumstances allow a DM to override a species' feature.

That is the claim. The other side's claim - doing the above takes away player agency.

I am just reposting this here, lest one side forgets.

Then, we have the definition of player agency which cannot be agreed upon either. That muddles the water.

 

[soviet]

I disagree. But you didn't answer my question. Is it okay if I have a reason for not allowing an ability because I have happen to have the reason written down? Why would it matter? How specific does it need to be for it to be okay?

This is about looking for reasons to say yes vs reasons to say no. If a reason to say no has already been unavoidably decided then that's one thing. But if it's at that moment undecided, to choose (with whatever motivation) to find a reason to say no (however logical that outcome may seem) rather than find a reason to say yes (assuming this isn't on its face ridiculous eg jumping over the moon) is to deny player agency (which may not always be wrong, depending on your preferences).

 

[Maxperson]

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.

What tables that don't prep 90-100% of the game? A lot of us prep the outline and improvise based off of what the PCs do, past roleplay, current events, etc.

It would be unusual for the group through roleplay to send a message to the local lord to go to the king and ask/say/do something important. Then when they arrive in town they might go to his manor to see if they could be put up, but since the lord is gone and nobody has the authority, the ability would not work.

There's no way that I could have written that down in my notes ahead of time. My group wouldn't care since they'd see that the ruling made sense and would just get a room at the inn, but you seem to be saying that I should be forbidden from saying no even when it makes sense because it wasn't done in advance.

The GM's motive doesn't matter. Agency was either denied, or not.

Remember that agency isn't necessarily the only goal of all roleplaying.

Agency is being able to act as your character would act and having your declarations matter. Saying no accomplishes that just the same as yes does. If the action in question should result in no, then I am denying their agency and invalidating their declaration by saying that it doesn't matter if I say yes. The same if saying yes what the answer should be in order for the declaration to matter and I say no. Saying yes or no does not inherently grant or deny agency.

 

[Oofta]

This is about looking for reasons to say yes vs reasons to say no. If a reason to say no has already been unavoidably decided then that's one thing. But if it's at that moment undecided, to choose (with whatever motivation) to find a reason to say no (however logical that outcome may seem) rather than find a reason to say yes (assuming this isn't on its face ridiculous eg jumping over the moon) is to deny player agency (which may not always be wrong, depending on your preferences).

I could pretty much always find a reason to say yes. There's nothing magical about what I've written down. I change direction from my prep notes all the time. Sometimes what people thought was established fact changes when new information comes to light.

Ultimately the DM is deciding how to narrate any action the PC attempts. Shuffling the goalposts around doesn't change anything. I try to run a fairly "grounded" campaign given the assumptions of wizards, dragons and whatnot. If I were in a game where suddenly my sage that's trapped in Ravenloft has access to a library of knowledge to do research in, it would be off-putting to me. It's not that the DM couldn't come up with some reason for it, it's that it wouldn't fit the nature of the campaign.

It also has incredibly little to do with overall player agency.