D&D General What is player agency to you?

[mamba]

First, it's the DM's idea of what's the most reasonable. That may or may not be an idea shared by some or all players.

yes, the DM’s. The DM generally hast the most information too, so that makes sense. That still does not mean that it is just ‘whatever the DM wants’, it follows rules of what is reasonable, and chances are the players agree most of the time, whether that is theoretical because they lack information or outright because the reason is being explained

So this is the DM pushing things in the direction they've determined.

No, ‘what is reasonable’ is not the same as ‘what the DM wants’.

I get it that this distinction is hard for the crowd that goes ‘players first, reason last’ but what is reasonable is what follows from actual reason / logic and real world experience, and applying that to a hypothetical and fantastical situation.

Second, sometimes the most reasonable thing isn't what winds up happening. Sometimes, something incredibly unlikely is what happens.

that is a lot more ‘because the DM / player wants it’ than the alternative, I’d call that heavy railroading for lack of a better term

Tell that to Gandalf!

I chose it for a reason. Have you seen him try it on front of a door for which he did not already know it worked that way?

Thanks for making my point for me…

But this goes back to the player making a reasonable request. If there's a reason to expect that magic may open the door, then why would they not try that?

they had no reason to in my example, other than the general knowledge that such doors exist

If there's no reason, and no spell or ability that makes it explicitly so, then why would they request to do that?

because they are desperate and out of ideas?

No, but instead it's more the player saying "I want to go through a door" and rather than having them arrive at a door that will stay closed, you bring them to a door that will open. Because that's what the ability says to do (as I interpret it).

I can go with that too. Why would I just open it? Just because the player wishes it open? Not interested… the player wishing it open is not a reason

The idea that the request won't work relies on choosing circumstances that make it not work.

yes, and? As long as those are reasonable that is just fine

Pretty sure you can think if things you would like to happen but simply do not, like winning the lottery, because of circumstances that make it not work. It is not my job to make the circumstances work

And if I grant the audience, it would not be my job to make sure it works out for the players. I see no difference there

 

[hawkeyefan]

The problem is in declaring your "believability" to be believable for everyone. I saw no believable ways for the noble to get an audience with the efreeti.

I didn't do that. Did you declare your unbelievability to apply to everyone? We're both advocating for what we prefer.

What I don't like is when you go beyond your preference and describe my game as being unbelievable in this way. You don't necessarily do so directly, but in the way you describe it as "I can do it my way, or I can run an unbelievable game".

What's believable may vary from person to person, though I imagine there's a pretty big area of overlap. But the narration on what happens that allows the audience to occur can vary according to taste, as well. Each of us can craft our own believable version. Or we can fail to do so and decide there is no way to do it, and block the action.

You keep saying that as if it will become true if you repeat it enough. You don't get to declare the preferences of others to be invalid. You can say that you don't share the preference, but you have no ability to make my preference invalid via a declaration.

I've done no such thing. You are free to play the game however you like. Your preferences are as valid as any.

The only thing I'm arguing here is your false dichotomy that the game can either be run your way, or else will consist of unbelievable events and absurdities.

They still end up dead. Bullets aren't magic missile and the sheer number of shots won't keep them safe. In any case, dead or alive, they aren't getting an audience with anyone but an arraignment judge at that point.

The specific details aren't important here... you've missed the point.

I do always put my setting and world logic above the player's action declarations. I do that because it's the best way I know how to run the game, the game feels more "real" to me if I do this. For me, it makes for a better game and one that's more enjoyable in the long run. Besides, if I had let the noble get an audience with the giant noble the noble would have had them for lunch. Not invited them for lunch, but literally had them as an entrée for lunch.

And that's fine! This is all I've been saying. You value the prep and the history of your world as you've established it over player agency when the two may come into conflict.

It's not a good or bad thing, except in how it aligns with one's preference.

I'm just trying to give feedback that it feels like you're pushing one true way whether you realize it or not, I'm not saying it's what you mean or that it's intentional.

I think I've been very clear about my preference. You've stated yours just above... is that you pushing one true way?

How come no admonishment for @Maxperson ? Is he saying that if people don't play like he does, then their games will consist of nonsensical fiction? I don't think he means to, but that's very much how it seems. Why not wag your finger at him?

Or at your own posts that assume only your logic is the way to achieve acceptable results?

You joke, but this is EXACTLY right.

The DM can easily (and in some cases heavily) telegraph that that a meeting is a REALLY bad idea. If the PC pushes for it anyway? What happens, happens.

All it does is open up an avenue of possibility. It doesn't automatically succeed as many have supposed. All it does is give the player an option to use that may allow them to approach a problem or situation in another way.

Such a small thing, really.

 

[gban007]

Has anybody ever said anything like that?

A quote from an earlier post:

'looking for a reason to say no either, we just take the reason we see as the most reasonable one in the circumstances'

As Pemerton says, can a bunch of misfits (Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas) with no real proof of heritage, be able to convince a noble to give them treasured horses as the most reasonable outcome? Or more likely the three would taken prisoner / executed?

Here, I think most reasonable is a bit extreme, and still very subjective, question is whether people think the above is a reasonable outcome, regardless of whether most likely to occur or not, and how much flex a DM will give in such a situation.

 

[hawkeyefan]

yes, the DM’s. The DM generally hast the most information too, so that makes sense. That still does not mean that it is just ‘whatever the DM wants’, it follows rules of what is reasonable, and chances are the players agree most of the time, whether that is theoretical because they lack information or outright because the reason is being explained

Sure.

No, ‘what is reasonable’ is not the same as ‘what the DM wants’.

I said "as the DM determined", which may or may not be what they want. Though if they're free to just decide, I imagine they'll be much more likely to convince themselves that what they want is also the most reasonable!

I get it that this distinction is hard for the crowd that goes ‘players first, reason last’ but what is reasonable is what follows from actual reason / logic and real world experience, and applying that to a hypothetical and fantastical situation.

Is there only one reasonable outcome for most actions?

that is a lot more ‘because the DM / player wants it’ than the alternative, I’d call that heavy railroading for lack of a better term

That's funny because what I had in mind is when something has a slim chance to succeed, and yet the dice determine that they do.

 

[Oofta]

I would say that if Hawkeyefan is pushing one true way intentionally or not, then the same is for yourself and Maxperson, around how all these options other people are presenting are 'not reasonable'. And so one true way is for it to only be 'reasonable'. I don't think this is your intent either, but I think both sides are pushing hard on their preferences, and both are coming across a bit one true way.

I almost always (I sometimes forget) qualify with "in my game", "for me", etc. That's different from proclaiming that "I am just following the rules" and insisting that the DM is just "finding a way to say no".

 

[soviet]

Ultimately I like to resolve these things through the rules. That's what they're for. If something being attempted is flat-out impossible (eg we have already established the duke is out of town) then no roll takes place - although you may be able to get an audience with his cousin, butler, etc. But if there is even a chance of a particular approach working, even if it's not the most likely outcome, then that's what the dice are for - play out the scene then make a Persuade check against the efreet/king/butler/secret service agents.

 

[mamba]

How can you not recognise that this has implications for the agency exercised by the players over the shared fiction?

what makes you believe he / we do not recognize that?

 

[Oofta]

A quote from an earlier post:

'looking for a reason to say no either, we just take the reason we see as the most reasonable one in the circumstances'

As Pemerton says, can a bunch of misfits (Aragorn, Gimli, Legolas) with no real proof of heritage, be able to convince a noble to give them treasured horses as the most reasonable outcome? Or more likely the three would taken prisoner / executed?

Here, I think most reasonable is a bit extreme, and still very subjective, question is whether people think the above is a reasonable outcome, regardless of whether most likely to occur or not, and how much flex a DM will give in such a situation.

So they rolled high on their persuasion check.

But let's go through this.

• The Dreadnaught Hoax? I had to look it up on Wikipedia, but it was a con that had nothing to do with actual royalty.
• Eomer giving the horses? Eomer likely felt guilty about getting Merry and Pippin killed. He also knew they were on an important mission. Again, nothing to do with nobility.
• Faramir believing Frodo? Again ... nothing to do with nobility
• Jane Gray? Not familiar with this, not sure how it's relevant.

But all the things listed made sense in the fictional narrative. None of them has anything to do with anything resembling background features. It's just dramatic moments in history and fiction ... it's just out of left field.

Things similar to all of those can, and have, occurred in my campaigns. Actions of NPCs follow the fiction of the world, they're logical in the context of that world.

 

[mamba]

I didn't do that. Did you declare your unbelievability to apply to everyone? We're both advocating for what we prefer.

I don’t think you particularly care about believability one way or the other

 

[gban007]

So they rolled high on their persuasion check.

But let's go through this.

• The Dreadnaught Hoax? I had to look it up on Wikipedia, but it was a con that had nothing to do with actual royalty.
• Eomer giving the horses? Eomer likely felt guilty about getting Merry and Pippin killed. He also knew they were on an important mission. Again, nothing to do with nobility.
• Faramir believing Frodo? Again ... nothing to do with nobility
• Jane Gray? Not familiar with this, not sure how it's relevant.

But all the things listed made sense in the fictional narrative. None of them has anything to do with anything resembling background features. It's just dramatic moments in history and fiction ... it's just out of left field.

Things similar to all of those can, and have, occurred in my campaigns. Actions of NPCs follow the fiction of the world, they're logical in the context of that world.

I don't believe the options presented by Pemerton were intended to be around the noble background, but to the prior poster's comment of 'most reasonable' outcome - that the above events / outcomes weren't the most reasonable outcome of a situation, not that they weren't reasonable at all. I don't think Pemerton was pushing back on what you were necessarily presenting, but on what Creamcloud was presenting.

Generally, my style of GMing is a bit more like yours, but possibly more towards the railroad as due to time commitments etc I tend to run published adventures these days, no longer sandboxes, and running Dragonlance one at the moment which creates a bit more of an imbalance in player vs DM knowledge (I normally play in FR where most players have as much knowledge as I do on the setting).

Like you, I will tend to limit the amount of player agency / authority to what I think the adventure / setting allows for, but in many ways I do this because it is just easier for me, even then sometimes I need to finish a session a little early as the players choose to do something that is still roughly in line with the overall adventure objectives, but left field enough that I need to work out what will happen as a consequence, and sometimes I just do do a hard no - is my preferred way of gaming, but I can see how it has less player agency than the narrative games, and I don't see that what others are coming up with in their examples of narrative play as being unreasonable outcomes, even if they aren't outcomes I would choose, they aren't less believable for it, just more of a hassle implementation wise than I can commit to really.