D&D General What is player agency to you?

[clearstream]

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'm mulling this one. What if GM says "These are the three outcomes we're interested in, agreed? Roll for it."

 

[Micah Sweet]

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!



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.

Yes, and there's always a logical reason for it.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm mulling this one. What if GM says "These are the three outcomes we're interested in, agreed? Roll for it."

The pushback there is always that the DM sets the odds.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The noble background as presented would say otherwise.

Which is why it is, in my opinion, a bad rule that flies in the face of the rest of the presentation of the game.

 

[clearstream]

The pushback there is always that the DM sets the odds.

No need, we can use a fixed index. The pushback ought to be that we fabricated a rule on the fly. In my example, that is done collaboratively. Is it then still differentiable from pre-loaded rules in thwarting agency?

 

[mamba]

The noble background as presented would say otherwise.

tell me where it says anything about supernatural, you are just inferring that based on how you read the rule

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.


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

They assume you're going to build your world the way they intend without saying so? That's just poor writing in my view. You either tell people what your assumptions are, or you don't make assumptions.

 

[Aldarc]

I really, really wish that people who have a specific vision of what they want in an RPG would just play a game intended for that.

This insight goes both ways.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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

We’re talking about player agency. What the player can and cannot do is pretty important to that. Some might say… vital.

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.

Because that’s not what anyone is suggesting, it’s just your either mischaracterization or misunderstanding of it.

 

[Oofta]

The noble background as presented would say otherwise.

No, it doesn't. You get the feature because your family "wields significant political influence." This idea that D&D does, or should, support a hierarchy of aristocracy as something inherent to specific families is dangerously close to core supporting beliefs of racism. I'm not going there.