D&D General What is player agency to you?

[Raiztt]

Them more depressingly like our world a fantasy world is, the less of a fantasy it is.

I don't think the world is depressing.

 

[pemerton]

how is that different from the players finding another way to accomplish their goal after the audience was denied, or setting new goals altogether?

The principle I quoted was "If the story doesn't interest you, it's your job to create interesting situations and involve yourself".

It is about creating interesting situations. It's not about setting goals. Nor looking for new ways to accomplish goals.

For instance: when I was playing Thurgon and Aramina, I wanted an interesting situation, namely, one involving Evard's Tower. So I declared that Aramina wanted to recollect the location of Evard's Tower - wasn't it around here somewhere? A Great Masters-wise check was made, and succeeded. Later on, I wanted an interesting situation, namely, one involving Thurgon's family, so I declared that Thurgon keeps his eye out for his family members, and made a Circles check. It succeeded, and Thurgon encounter Rufus.

If I were playing in a 5e game, and my PC was a Noble, and I declared that I (as my PC) was seeking an audience with a local noble, it's almost certain that I would regard the audience as an interesting situation. (I don't normally try and initiate boring situations when I'm playing a RPG.) So the GM denying the audience would be the opposite of what the BW rules say: instead of me, as a player, being able to do my job of creating interesting situations, the GM would be making me do something else. That's low player agency, GM-driven play.

 

[jmartkdr2]

The DM is the Main Character of D&D you see.

"I've been doing some thinking, and I got some ideas to improve the show game. I got it right here. Uh, one: Poochie The DM needs to be louder, angrier and have access to a time machine. Two: Whenever Poochie's the DM's not on screen, all the other characters players should be asking, "Where's Poochie The DM?" Three--"

I have to admit, whenever I see someone argue that dms don’t have enough power in DnD, something like this comes to mind.

I know unreasonable players exist; I’ve kicked them out of my games. But if you’re not willing to work with the good players, you’ll find yourself short if good players pretty quickly.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Here is our fundamental disagreement. I do not subscribe to the view that the players can constrain the DM in anyway. I view the DM opperating the way that the SCOTUS operates: it is literally impossible for them to be wrong. You cannot tell the SCOTUS that they interpreted the constitution incorrectly because they have the sole authority to interpret it.

Yeah, that is not any kind of dm I ever want to see at my table.

 

[Micah Sweet]

(1) is contentious, given that in many cases - as @hawkeyefan was pointing out upthread - a canonical account of what a person does includes an account of what happened, which includes or entails an outcome.

But even if that contention is set aside, getting to describe that I put out word, via my herald, that I would like an audience with <such-and-such a local noble house> in a context where the GM decides what actually happens, is low agency. It's the lowest degree of agency a player can exercise and still be playing the game at all.

As for (2), if the GM is always at liberty to negate/veto, then the player is really just making suggestions that the GM can choose to take up or not. I regard that as low agency. Taken literally, the player isn't playing the game at all, just making suggestions to the GM who is playing solo.

So now you're saying that games where players don't author all the fiction are barely games at all, let alone have agency.

This is textbook one true way.

 

[TwoSix]

Here is our fundamental disagreement. I do not subscribe to the view that the players can constrain the DM in anyway. I view the DM opperating the way that the SCOTUS operates: it is literally impossible for them to be wrong. You cannot tell the SCOTUS that they interpreted the constitution incorrectly because they have the sole authority to interpret it.

I think this very much depends on the game system in question.

In some games, it would be flat-out incorrect to play this way, as it's entirely against clearly stated play principles. In other games, this is the standard way to play, and playing otherwise would also be against clearly stated play principles.

Where most of the butting heads comes from is trying to determine if one method or the other is more appropriate for D&D, specifically, and whether or not the general predominance of DM-driven play is actually best practice or more of an atavism of its long history and more shared authority would lead to the betterment of the play culture.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Vincent Baker has discussed this at length, and I quoted some of what he has to say in a relatively recent thread.

Rules that constrain who is entitled to say what when, where those constraint can include demands - eg demands on the GM to narrate a failure - make the play of the game more exciting then it would be if it was just round-robin storytelling.

The agency of the player consists in establishing the context and elements that the GM uses in framing and consequence narration.

In all fairness, I'm getting pretty tired of hearing what Vincent Baker has to say about everything. The man's point of view is not sacred or infallible.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Why? Because it offends you all that players can make some assertions in a game? I just don't get it. I mean, literally its a nonsensical attitude when the goal is to play a game which is fundamentally cooperative in nature.



This CLEARLY and unequivocally gives the authority to the PLAYER to decide they are going to get an audience with "a local noble" where the 'a' is pretty clearly (and I passed my SAT with a perfect score and got Straight As in English in College, I'm not guessing here) meant to be one of a class of nobles picked by the player. When someone says "do you want a donut" they do not mean "take this donut I'm shoving in your face" they mean "take any one of what is on offer here." Now, obviously, that may be a very limited, or even non-existent choice, but the PLAYER gets to choose from what is available! PERIOD.

Your character will be treated as a member of the Ruling Class within the society he is a member of, and I would also expect that to extend to other societies where his position is reasonably equivalent and similar social norms exist. If he shows up in the Dwarf Kingdom or Elfland, he'll get his audience. If he shows up at an orc lair the response might be "we ritually murder and eat the hearts of enemy leaders, GANK!" OK, but you'll at least get your minute with the Orc King to say whatever clever thing you think might get you out of that.

All this nonsense about GMs who are the only one who can say if its 'sensible' for this or that to happen, what a lot of bunk. I call it!

As you said to me more than once, we all know where you stand.

 

[TwoSix]

As for (2), if the GM is always at liberty to negate/veto, then the player is really just making suggestions that the GM can choose to take up or not. I regard that as low agency. Taken literally, the player isn't playing the game at all, just making suggestions to the GM who is playing solo.

I don't know if I'd go that far. We have to assume that in principled simulationist/low authority play, the DM is bound (by play principles, if not by explicit rule) to not veto player intent unless such intent fails a credible fiction test. (Which yes, is decided by the DM, but I did say "low authority" play.)

 

[Micah Sweet]

I've read the passage in which Aragorn meets Eomer many times. Here is the core of it:

"Come! Who are you? Whom do you serve? At whose command to you hunt Orcs in our land?"​

​

"I serve no man," said Aragorn . . . "the Orcs whom we pursued took captive two of my friends. In such need a man that has no horse will go on foot, and he will not ask for leave to follow the trail. Nor will he count the heads of the enemy save with a sword. I am not weaponless."​

​

Aragorn through back his cloak. The elven-sheath glittered as he grasped it,, and the bright blade of Anduril shone like a sudden flame as he swept it out. "Elendil!" he cried. "I am Aragorn son of Arathorn, and am called Elessar, the Elfstone, Dunadan, the heir of Isildur Elendil's son of Gondor. Here is the Sword that was Broken and is forged again! Will you aid me or thwart me? Choose swiftly!"​

​

. . .​

​

Eomer stepped back an a look of awe was in his face. He cast down his proud eyes. "These are indeed strange days," he muttered. "Dreams and legends spring to life out of the grass.​

​

"Tell me, lord," he said, what brings you here?"​

That's not magic. In D&D terms, Aragorn has not cast a spell. That's a dramatic example of one noble gaining an audience with another.

The 5e feature is clear: it refers to high birth and contrasts that with common folk. It doesn't talk about audiences with oligarchs, or merchant guild leaders, or abbots, or the leaders of communes. It talks about nobility.

Looks to me like he engaged in some free roleplay and then made a reaction roll.