D&D General What is player agency to you?

[hawkeyefan]

I am addressing all RPG players everywhere, particularly those who want to make a game designed for classic or trad or neo-trad play into something more suited for narrative play (although of course it equally applies to the reverse). If you need to make significant changes to the game to suit your playstyle, why not play a game that is closer to what you want? And that applies to designers who try to shift an existing game's playstyle through rules changes as well. Make and promote a different game.

All IMO, of course.

I play 5e and I simply allow the rule to work when I run the game. It’s never caused any of the issues suggested in this thread by folks who have not actually played that way.

The rule requires no changes for it to work.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't understand this at all. If a player wants to emulate Two-Face or The Dice Man in their play of their PC, letting them do that doesn't really seem a denial of their agency.

I don't get this whole The DM must have a veto power so that the players can be saved from themselves thing.

The point is that if my choices don't matter due to the "say yes" policy, what agency is there? To have agency I need to not only be able to make choices, but those choices have to mean something. Success or the chance for success has no meaning if it's not warranted.

A railroad invalidates my choices and agency by removing any meaning, and so does "say yes."

 

[mamba]

By the way, you've now answered your question that you posed to me upthread: what is the point of the GM?

apparently to fill in the blanks in the rulebook. If the rulebook covered every case the players encountered / came up with, the players could do just fine without one

 

[Micah Sweet]

I play 5e and I simply allow the rule to work when I run the game. It’s never caused any of the issues suggested in this thread by folks who have not actually played that way.

The rule requires no changes for it to work.

And if you're ok with that, fair enough. I rather wish it didn't exist in 5e, and represents a trend in design I don't care for.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yes, exactly. The example suggests that GM can empower player agency through their attitude and approach. Even when they are making rulings rather than applying RAW.

Ah so you were suggesting this in the case of use of the Noble Feature?

I’m not sure I see the need to override how the rule is meant to work, but if one did so, this certainly seems to be a more reasonable way of handling it than simply saying no.

However, as I said, it’s hard to know why you’d need to remove the certainty and replace it with a chance. It still may succeed, which means the “issue” isn’t with some perceived conflict brought about by success. The folks saying it can be denied are claiming that success is what would cause the issue (inconsistency, verisimilitude, what have you), and although I think that reasoning is flawed, I at least understand where it comes from.

 

[SteveC]

I'm not going to support a rule that say some people are inherently better because of their ancestry.

Feel free to do whatever you want.

Just reading this makes me think we've come to the reason for this disagreement about the noble audience thing at last. Of course, in the real world, people aren't inherently better because of their ancestry. However, in the periods we are looking at, where there were kingdoms and the nobility had real power, they certainly acted like it.

In the real world, the kings and queens lived under a whole system where they had authority based on their ancestry. And the other kingdoms all acknowledged it so that there could be peace and the different kingdoms would flourish. They inter-married, were educated by the same teachers and schools ... they were all linked. So a minor French noble could very much expect courtesy from, say, the court of Austria because everyone knew each other. No, they might not know this minor noble, but you can be sure they knew the king of France. In a tiny way, showing respect to that minor noble would make sure that the king knew he was getting respect.

And the notion, in fantasy terms, that the king and nobility are linked to the prosperity of the land and kingdom, that was also a thing. If you've ever seen the movie Excalibur, the idea that the land and the king are one literally receives divine endorsement.

Now in your game, none of those things may be true. If I'm playing in your game, I have to wonder how nobility works, since it seems like we've talking about a much smaller and more local authority. And that's great, but it's also something a character I'd play, who grew up in the world, would know. And they wouldn't even attempt the now infamous check to get an audience. They'd just get ready for the next dungeon or whatever adventure was coming next. And if I'm honest, that sounds like the kind of game I'd play in but not really get all that involved with.

 

[hawkeyefan]

And if you're ok with that, fair enough. I rather wish it didn't exist in 5e, and represents a trend in design I don't care for.

Yeah, that’s fine. My point is just that as someone who plays 5e, I’m fine with the rule working as intended. No need for me to scurry off and find other games.

 

[Cruentus]

Folks are still taking that one portion of the noble background out of context of the entire background. It clearly states in the background that the player and DM need to discuss and agree on what that nobility means, I quote:

“Work with your DM to come up with an appropriate title and determine how much authority that title carries. A noble title doesn’t stand on its own—it’s connected to an entire family, and whatever title you hold, you will pass it down to your own children. Not only do you need to determine your noble title, but you should also work with the DM to describe your family and their influence on you.

Is your family old and established, or was your title only recently bestowed? How much influence do they wield, and over what area? What kind of reputation does your family have among the other aristocrats of the region? How do the common people regard them?

What’s your position in the family? Are you the heir to the head of the family? Have you already inherited the title? How do you feel about that responsibility? Or are you so far down the line of inheritance that no one cares what you do, as long as you don’t embarrass the family? How does the head of your family feel about your adventuring career? Are you in your family’s good graces, or shunned by the rest of your family?

Does your family have a coat of arms? An insignia you might wear on a signet ring? Particular colors you wear all the time? An animal you regard as a symbol of your line or even a spiritual member of the family?

These details help establish your family and your title as features of the world of the campaign.”

Unless you’ve also done this work, you’re not complying with the rule, or the background. You’re cherry picking on element, the ‘for advantage’ one, and ignoring the rest of the context, and potential limitations. You can’t handwave away actually siting the background in the game world.

 

[clearstream]

apparently to fill in the blanks in the rulebook. If the rulebook covered every case the players encountered / came up with, the players could do just fine without one

There are other matters where players can prefer not to have agency, such as managing adversaries and adversities.

 

[clearstream]

Ah so you were suggesting this in the case of use of the Noble Feature?

What? No! I'm not involved in that thread of the discussion.