D&D General What is player agency to you?

[mamba]

Right. But so far, all examples are hypotheticals. They're all being proposed through the lens of justifying the DM's authority. No one has offered any examples from actual play.

the same is true for the side that says the DM has to find a way to make it work, to the point of having to have had another visitor to a lifeless plane in the same location and just a day or two ago, who brought eggs with them and accidentally dropped some, for the char in the party to be able to use their egg finding skill successfully

If you are willing to go that far, why do you need actual examples, you will never accept the premise

There is no "world"... it's not real. Be creative. Make it work.

case in point

 

[mamba]

You defined 2 states in prison, one state with agency and one state with no agency. Which prison state am I comparing the house arrest to?

I defined prison with courtyard for an hour and house arrest, there is no second prison state. The idea was to compare prison to house arrest

 

[mamba]

I’ve repeatedly talked about the GM's role in framing, and in establishing consequences. Who do you propose is going to do that, if not the GM?

to me it sounds like the players are perfectly capable of reading the rules themselves and figuring out what happens next, I see no need for a GM in how you describe the role of the GM

Your example provides both too much detail and too little information for me to figure out what the GM was actually needed for.

It is all based on player input, some of it established before your example starts I assume. As far as I can tell the GM does three things 1) describe the scene based expressly and exclusively on input from the players, 2) apply the rules as written, 3) grant everything else

 

[Oofta]

Who decided that this transportation has taken place? Who put at stake that the world of the PCs would change from Faerun to the US?

I mean, this is no different from the City of Brass example, about which I asked exactly the same questions.

Assuming that the players have exercised their agency in brining about this reframing of things, then why would they seek to find a noble in a realm which has, as one of its founding principles, that "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States"?

So nobody is saying that the players have control over the narrative, but the players have to have to buy in to being sent to a different universe?

Let's say instead of the US they found themselves in the UK and try to see King Charles. They walk up to Buckingham Palace and demand to see the king. How you do you deflect and give a non-answer this time?

 

[Oofta]

So, here is a question/situation for the team that says "Securing an audience" is exactly like fireball.

We're playing D&D - say set in Faerun - and the level 1 PCs are somehow transported into the actual (fictional) Washington DC. One of the PCs happens to have the noble background and declares that he will secure a meeting with the President of the United States - who is very arguably a type of noble/ruler.

How do you justify this person meeting the sitting President? As in, if I ask you "how" what is your answer?

I asked something similar. Since we (officially) don't have nobility in the U.S. the analogy is anyone who holds political office being able to get a meet-and-greet with anyone else who holds a political office. No answers then either.

 

[hawkeyefan]

yes, and I can point you to a rule that says DMs can override other rules...

Yes, I know that. I've seen them. And I've already said, that's fine... it's a perfectly fine way to play.

But it renders player agency non-existent.

For player agency to exist, the DM must be obliged to honor player input.

I've said that as well. With a bit more specificity. Saying no doesn't inherently remove agency, just the same as saying yes doesn't inherently grant agency. Both yes and no can affect agency or not, depending on circumstances.

Do you think that agency is something that can be given? Don't you think that's inherently paradoxical?

Nah that's a cop out. This is just hand waving without actually explaining how this fits into the world fiction. The PC marches up to a palace guard who is, what, a low level type of genie and demands to see the king? And I am to believe that a common elemental guard is going to care enough to go through all the work to help someone who he probably thinks is insane contact the king? So that the guard can be executed for dereliction of his duties???

Anyone is free to run their game however they wish - obviously - so much of this is moot. But for me, in my games, things follow the PSR. They don't just happen for no reason or without some coherent explanation.

I can imagine any number of ways for the City of Brass situation to work... but I've never had that happen in play, so I don't want to start piling even more hypotheticals into the thread. So instead I'll talk about an example from actual play in a game I GMed.

The Noble character is a one-eyed Wizard Diviner named Braeda. She and her characters found themselves in a hostile city, where they didn't appear to have any allies. The gates were closed by the High Preist that ruled the city. This was because of some shenanigans the characters had gotten up to. They were spent from a battle, with little left in the tank.

Braeda's player asked me if there are any local nobles. I said yes, despite the High Priest having assumed power some time ago, he kept many of the nobles under his thumb. They made their way to the estate of one of the minor nobles in the city. Braeda approached the gate and demanded to speak to the lord. The player mentioned the background ability.

I said that the guards at the gate weren't inclined to listen... but I wanted to honor the ability. So I said "What does Braeda do to convince them to let her and her friends in?"

The player gave it some thought and then his eyes lit up. He said she raised her right hand to cover her empty eye socket, and that the stylized eye tattoo on the back of her hand flared with light (a cantrip) and said that she was a seer and their lord would want to hear what she had seen. That got them the audience, and was a really cool moment of play.

We worked together and found a way that it worked.

Crazy.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why would it have been better off with a different name. I have many 4e D&D books, which in various ways contributed valuable content to my RPGing for several years. If the game had not been called D&D and published by WotC, it's very unlikely that most of those books would have been published. Which I think would not have made the game, or my play of it, better off.

If it was not named D&D, it might not have sold as many books in total, but it also might have lasted longer, because there would be no reason to challenge it in regards to other editions of D&D. The real problem is that it was published by WotC, who wanted a new version of D&D.

 

[mamba]

Yes, I know that. I've seen them. And I've already said, that's fine... it's a perfectly fine way to play.

But it renders player agency non-existent.

For player agency to exist, the DM must be obliged to honor player input.

I disagree, me denying something every once in a while does not mean the player has no agency

If you think the mere possibility of me denying something means the player has no agency, then I do not care. The DM is no different than a rule or a die roll then, and no one says they have to guarantee a success

 

[Micah Sweet]

It assume that the PC doesn't sneeze while trying to speak the words, that no wind gust comes up that is so strong that it stops the words being spoken, that nothing has happened to the PC's components to render them unavailable, that the PC doesn't trip or stumble so as to spoil their somatic components, etc.

Casting a spell in D&D is very dependent on the state of the world beyond the body and mind of the PC.

Fair enough. I would absolutely  love the possibility of spell failure to be a thing!

 

[hawkeyefan]

I disagree, me denying something every once in a while does not mean the player has no agency

We’re not talking about now and then. We’re talking about every instance of play being subject to your approval.

People are citing the DM’s absolute authority per some phrasing in the DMG as the justification for these moments. We’ve shifted from justifications based on the context in the game world to justifications based on the rules.

If the DM has absolute authority, then that’s what it is.