D&D General What is player agency to you?

[Micah Sweet]

I agree it doesn't say that outright (IIRC), but I did take it to be the implication. Not supernatural but sort of inherent. A noble bearing that others see.

I did not, because that is not an assumption that I believe should be made, absent of stated supernatural force or blatantly obvious observation (such as the existence of dragons).

 

[Oofta]

This is all fine. The difference here is that the PC has an ability that specifies that they can get the audience.

In your campaign not mine. But it has nothing to do with what I said. A fighter that specializes in archery is not inherently without agency because they don't have a bow. They have fewer options than they would normally have, but they may still have several options with reasonable understanding of risks and rewards. They have agency even though they are lacking one option they normally have.

Agree or disagree?

 

[Oofta]

I agree it doesn't say that outright (IIRC), but I did take it to be the implication. Not supernatural but sort of inherent. A noble bearing that others see.

It's not hard to look up. They only have special standing because their family has political influence. It's in the first sentence of the description of the noble background.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Agreed. There are many differences there. But not in regards to player agency. In every instance the player was denied the ability to do what he wanted to do.

It’s about more than the failure.

So again, just the rules widget.

Backgrounds in 5e are to me really incongruous with the general drive of the rules.

Yeah, they allow player agency!

I'm kind of getting the impression that these threads have less to do with the player being denied the ability to do what they want to do (agency), but rather, when they are denied the ability to do what they want to do (agency), how that denial occurred.

Welcome to the conversation!

How is critical. It’s not the failure itself, it’s how that was determined for the player. How did the player (not the character) fail?

If they failed because they tested the odds and it didn’t work out… they made a roll and didn’t meet the target… then that is them making an informed decision and it not working out. That’s agency. The ability to succeed or fail is up to them.

If they fail because the DM says “no”, then it’s not really up to the player, is it? So there’s no agency there.

How the hell was my last post a dodge or bad faith. It was very clear and very honest about what I believe and what my stance is.

I think it’s a matter of it being so off base that it’s hard to believe someone would make it in good faith. Honestly, your idea of agency is way off.

what decisions you make Won't Actually Matter if everything you decide to do will succeed regardless of their actual chances of success, that's what is being said.
i don't have any agency if no matter where i fire an arrow it is declared a bullseye anyway.

This would apply if the entire game consisted of the noble declaring audiences all the time and nothing else.

It’s such a specific thing that will come up only occasionally. The idea that it’s game breaking for the DM to yield this tiny bit of authority is bonkers.

The only thing that makes a noble special is a title, a sense of entitlement, and the social constructs of the society they live in that respect the title. Take them out of the culture that respects that title and they are no longer special.

Tell that to Aragorn! Or Arthur! Or Odysseus! Or dozens of other examples from myth and legend that clearly served as inspiration for the feature!

I would actually be fine with supernatural nobility being a thing, but only if it were called out as such. There is no reason such a thing would be simply assumed because the genre is fantasy. a Song of Ice and Fire is. A fantasy story full of nobles, but apparently none have the Noble background.

And yet in Game of Thrones, the characters get audiences all the time, with all manner of other nobles, from friends to enemies to strangers.

 

[Oofta]

It’s about more than the failure.



Yeah, they allow player agency!



Welcome to the conversation!

How is critical. It’s not the failure itself, it’s how that was determined for the player. How did the player (not the character) fail?

If they failed because they tested the odds and it didn’t work out… they made a roll and didn’t meet the target… then that is them making an informed decision and it not working out. That’s agency. The ability to succeed or fail is up to them.

If they fail because the DM says “no”, then it’s not really up to the player, is it? So there’s no agency there.



I think it’s a matter of it being so off base that it’s hard to believe someone would make it in good faith. Honestly, your idea of agency is way off.



This would apply if the entire game consisted of the noble declaring audiences all the time and nothing else.

It’s such a specific thing that will come up only occasionally. The idea that it’s game breaking for the DM to yield this tiny bit of authority is bonkers.



Tell that to Aragorn! Or Arthur! Or Odysseus! Or dozens of other examples from myth and legend that clearly served as inspiration for the feature!

If you want a supernaturally supported caste system in your campaign world, go for it. It's not a core assumption of D&D.

And yet in Game of Thrones, the characters get audiences all the time, with all manner of other nobles, from friends to enemies to strangers.

 

[hawkeyefan]

If you want a supernaturally supported caste system in your campaign world, go for it. It's not a core assumption of D&D.

The noble background as presented would say otherwise.

 

[clearstream]

Regarding rule inviolability, a few assumptions are probably being made

1. Every rule has clear applicability - the passions mechanics in Pendragon are not always unambiguously invocable
2. Each rule has one clear meaning upon which there is consensus - the long rest rule in 5e contains an example of a literal ambiguity
3. No rule requires a judgement call - the reaching rule in TB2 requires a judgement call (that can be made by any participant)
4. That there are rules to violate - in FKR there are (by intent) frequently no rules for every circumstance
5. No participant can be counted among the means of play (rather than as players) - notionally putting them on an equal footing with rules
6. No circumstances fall outside the rules - skilled OSR play often involves avoiding invoking rules

To follow an inviolable rule is to surrender agency to that rule: doing what it says, rather than freely following one's volition. The same is true when one appoints a participant to become a source of rulings. The question cannot be one of gain in agency. It is one of preference in surrendering agency.

If I prefer to surrender agency to written rules, I have the great advantage that they're in place and largely clear up-front. If I prefer to surrender agency to a GM, I have the great advantage that they can extend rulings to cover any case. Game designers who adequately playtest their rules can probably be relied upon a bit more than a randomly-selected GM; but not all game designers adequately playtest their rules, and some GMs are very experienced and accurate in their rulings.

I'm undecided which is best. They're certainly different. I think my view is that surrendering agency is surrendering agency, whether that be to a rule or a ruler.

 

[mamba]

How is critical. It’s not the failure itself, it’s how that was determined for the player. How did the player (not the character) fail

huh? the char did not get the audience, the player has nothing to do with that

You must be thinking of ‘how did the player fail to wish the +1 sword into the cupboard’. To me these two are very different

I think it’s a matter of it being so off base that it’s hard to believe someone would make it in good faith. Honestly, your idea of agency is way off.

let’s just say ‘disagreeing with yours’ instead of ‘way off’…

Tell that to Aragorn! Or Arthur! Or Odysseus! Or dozens of other examples from myth and legend that clearly served as inspiration for the feature!

where are those ever outside their culture?

And yet in Game of Thrones, the characters get audiences all the time, with all manner of other nobles, from friends to enemies to strangers

they all know each other, these are all local nobles in the time and space sense of mine. Basically these are extended family gatherings, nothing like a different plane

 

[Maxperson]

I think it’s a matter of it being so off base that it’s hard to believe someone would make it in good faith. Honestly, your idea of agency is way off.

Explain to me how anything I do matters if you're always going to be trying to find ways to say yes? You are effectively railroading me down a pathway of yes.

 

[Aldarc]

Or, if nobility is supposed to carry supernatural "social magic", as @pemerton suggested, then it is called out as such in the books  somewhere.

Or maybe WotC probably thought that a world-builder like you who likes to extrapolate logical implications and realism from the setting would naturally have come to such conclusions about nobility.

If you want a supernaturally supported caste system in your campaign world, go for it. It's not a core assumption of D&D.

You know what is an explicit core assumption? That a player character with a noble background can secure an audience with the local noble.