D&D General What is player agency to you?

[CreamCloud0]

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.

you misinterpret the point of my post, you asked 'what's the difference aren't they both narrative control' and i point out that no, in one you are manipulating the world outside your character, that is what narrative control is, separate to player agency, the narrative is external to your character, and not part of what defines your agency.

 

[Aldarc]

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

Again, the same could be said for Candela Obscura with Blades in the Dark, but it's pretty clear reading through the quickstart that the game is designed for a GM-curated story experience, which is basically the opposite of a game like BitD. So just because you see some similar DNA from story games doesn't mean that it's a story game. Beyond the Wall and Other Adventures decided to use playbooks, as inspired by PbtA, but the game is an OSR game through and through. Likewise, Heroes of Cerulea took ideas from Blades in the Dark, but it's a pretty rules lite OSR dungeon-crawler game through and through. There are so many examples of OSR or more traditional mainstream games adopting mechanics cribbed from story games without being story games or those mechanics being used for story game purposes.

This is why I also think that some of what you write in that thread is also incredibly premature. Until we get a quickstart or more information, it seems silly IMO to believe that it's somehow more of a story game. We don't know enough yet! Matt Mercer likes GM-curated gameplay. I would be surprised if that wasn't taken into consideration when designing this system.

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.

This is still unnecessary "war" language. There is no war. Our hobby is not coming to war. There is no impending war to avoid. So there is no best way to avoid a non-existent war.

And as previously said by me and others, One D&D is likely dropping background features as the designers are trying to cut out "Mother May I" abilities that are unreliable for players.

 

[Aldarc]

you misinterpret the point of my post, you asked 'what's the difference aren't they both narrative control' and i point out that no, in one you are manipulating the world outside your character, that is what narrative control is, separate to player agency, the narrative is external to your character, and not part of what defines your agency.

This get's a big, hard "no" from me. What defines player agency is that I am the player. The player is me. It is NOT my character. And it is not limited to my play of the player character. As a player of the game I may have the agency to manipulate the world outside my player character and through my player character. Both of those expand my agency for me, the player, as a participant of this game. My agency as a player is not necessarily restricted to that of my player character, though this obviously depends on the tabletop game being played. So player agency for each respective player is about me, myself, and I in how we interact with the gameplay at the table.

 

[Mort]

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.

I think what your saying is you make sure (as the DM) that the genre/theme is maintained? And if you believe a request would fall outside the genre/theme etc. of the campaign you are running that's when a flat no is near assured?

I can't really see a problem with that. I mean if a player asks for a suit of metal plate armor in Darksun, without some serious prior setup that could possibly justify it - where would that come from?

As long as the players understand the paradigm - it really shouldn't be a problem. Or at least certainly doesn't have to be.

 

[mamba]

One D&D is likely dropping background features as the designers are trying to cut out "Mother May I" abilities that are unreliable for players.

if the last 50 pages are any indication, this cannot come soon enough

 

[Maxperson]

The printed rule says different

Do they?

DGM Page 4 under The Dungeon Master

"As a storyteller, the DM helps the other players visualize what's happening around them, improvising when the adventurers do something or go somewhere unexpected."

And...

"And as a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them."

And...

"The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game."

DMG page 5 under Master of Adventures

"The rules don't account for every possible situation that might arise during a typical D&D session."

DMG page 235 under Running the Game

"RULES ENABLE YOU AND YOUR PLAYERS TO HAVE fun at the table. The rules serve you, not vice versa."

DMG Page 237 under The Middle Path

"Remember that dice don't run your game-you do. Dice are like rules. They're tools to help keep the action moving. At any time, you can decide that a player's action is automatically successful. You can also grant the player advantage on any ability check, reducing the chance of a bad die roll foiling the character's plans. By the same token, a bad plan or unfortunate circumstances can transform the easiest task into an impossibility, or at least impose disadvantage."

DMG Page 263 under Dungeon Master's Workshop

"AS THE DUNGEON MASTER, YOU AREN'T LIMITED by the rules in the Player's Handbook, the guidelines in this book, or the selection of monsters in the Monster Manual."

From what I can see the DM isn't obliged to follow what the backgrounds say if circumstances warrant a different ruling.

 

[soviet]

Do they?

It. The quote was 'the printed rule says different'. Rule singular. Nothing you have said is remotely relevant.

DGM Page 4 under The Dungeon Master

"As a storyteller, the DM helps the other players visualize what's happening around them, improvising when the adventurers do something or go somewhere unexpected."

And...

"And as a referee, the DM interprets the rules and decides when to abide by them and when to change them."

And...

"The D&D rules help you and the other players have a good time, but the rules aren't in charge. You're the DM, and you are in charge of the game."

DMG page 5 under Master of Adventures

"The rules don't account for every possible situation that might arise during a typical D&D session."

DMG page 235 under Running the Game

"RULES ENABLE YOU AND YOUR PLAYERS TO HAVE fun at the table. The rules serve you, not vice versa."

DMG Page 237 under The Middle Path

"Remember that dice don't run your game-you do. Dice are like rules. They're tools to help keep the action moving. At any time, you can decide that a player's action is automatically successful. You can also grant the player advantage on any ability check, reducing the chance of a bad die roll foiling the character's plans. By the same token, a bad plan or unfortunate circumstances can transform the easiest task into an impossibility, or at least impose disadvantage."

DMG Page 263 under Dungeon Master's Workshop

"AS THE DUNGEON MASTER, YOU AREN'T LIMITED by the rules in the Player's Handbook, the guidelines in this book, or the selection of monsters in the Monster Manual."

From what I can see the DM isn't obliged to follow what the backgrounds say if circumstances warrant a different ruling.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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

Because I've never used any. Why is the burden of proof on me? You think there's a good reason, provide an example.

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.

What? "I cast fireball" is my decision alone. Then the effects go off, per the rules. No one else gets to decide what happens, except perhaps that they can save for lesser damage.

I say what I want my character to do, and then the rules tell us how it goes.

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.

I would say that folks who are ignoring the phrasing in the text that eliminates player agency are at least consistent when they say they care about player agency.

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

Tell that to the targets of the spell!

 

[mamba]

It. The quote was 'the printed rule says different'. Rule singular. Nothing you have said is remotely relevant.

let me know when you play a game with that rule only, otherwise I fail to see the point of you pointing out the singular

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

I would say that the DM may narrate something else happening along the way... maybe the character is accosted by criminals or runs into someone he knows or what have you... but I don't think of my declaration of going to the inn as a request. That's what will happen, unless there's a good reason it can't.

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 everything in the game is subject to the will of the DM, then player agency does not exist. I see you've already posted all your favorite bits from the DMG that support your idea.

You are advocating for the death of player agency with this line of reasoning.

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.

See the last sentence here? What you're describing as "should" happen? The reasonable view that although the DM has a good deal of authority, there are a metric ton of rules for a reason? That should be how we discuss this stuff.

Not this whole "the rules are only there for the DM to consider" nonsense.

you misinterpret the point of my post, you asked 'what's the difference aren't they both narrative control' and i point out that no, in one you are manipulating the world outside your character, that is what narrative control is, separate to player agency, the narrative is external to your character, and not part of what defines your agency.

But both are describing things that happen in the narrative. I am declaring things that happen in the narrative. It's the same when my character lops the head off of an orc, or casts a spell, of swings from a chandelier, or climbs a wall.

I declare these things, and then the rules say how they go. If we sub in the DM for the rules, then everything that happens in play is what the DM says can happen.