D&D General What is player agency to you?

[pemerton]

Not if they're playing in good faith, no. But that roll, even if rolling to secure an audience, has a chance of failure. It is not player OR DM fiat.

Maybe you missed this post of mine upthread:

I am not the biggest fan of fiat abilities, because I think dice rolls produce a more compelling pattern of success and failure (Robin Laws calls this the pass/fail cycle, and suggests that it is inherent to all stories). But where fiat abilities are tightly rationed (eg as is the case for Prince Valiant Storyteller Certificates), then they allow the player to really stake their claim - This is where I care, and will produce the outcome I want!

In the context of 5e D&D, the "rationing" consists in being able to choose only one background, and having the fictional circumstances that enliven it be reasonably narrow. I think this design is less compelling than Prince Valiant, as the player makes their choice at the start of play and in anticipation, rather than at the moment of truth as happens i Prince Valiant - but this would just be one way in which D&D design tends to favour "comfortable" over "compelling", and probably not the most invidious.

 

[pemerton]

It sounds like you would find the vast majority of D&D games (and not even all 4e games) an unbearable railroad then.

I haven't taken a poll, but I'm sure that's true of many of them, yes.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Not if they're playing in good faith, no. But that roll, even if rolling to secure an audience, has a chance of failure. It is not player OR DM fiat.

This is true. And I understand your preference would be to use dice rolls. But many here have advocated for DM fiat.

Of the two, I think one is very clearly pro-player agency and the other is very clearly not.

That's really what it boils down to. Just about everything else in the thread has been tangential to that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Here's Oofta claiming it:

That post was XPed by you, @Raiztt, @Micah Sweet and @CreamCloud0, suggesting at least some degree of agreement or similar inclination.

So your argument is that it's not an apex because it's a plateau? I don't even know what the difference of metaphor means in this context, given that both are places beyond which it is not possible to climb higher. In any event, that doesn't seem to contradict @AbdulAlhazred's point.

How does that post claim D&D as "the apex of agency"? I don't understand your reasoning.

 

[Oofta]

This is not true of all D&D play. You keep projecting your mid-to-late 80s approach to play onto everyone else and asserting that it is D&D.

In Moldvay Basic the GM is not the sole decider of what happens when a player declares an action for their PC: eg if the player declares that their PC turns left at the intersection, the GM has no veto power. If the player declares that their PC opens the door, the GM is expected to call for a roll to open doors, but has not veto power.

I've already given multiple examples, upthread, from the 4e rules and have given examples of 4e play.

I'm not going to argue about 4E. I gave several quotes for 5E from the first chapter of the PHB and the DMG a page or so back. The player describe what they do, the DM describes what happens. The DM is in charge, not the rules.

Not remotely. Apart from anything else, it lets me very reliably predict whose RPGing I would enjoy participating in, and whose I would find an unbearable railroad.

Oh noes! I'm being judged by someone I've never met, who has never played in my game, has obviously never talked to anyone I've ever DMed for, who has declared that because we disagree on some aspects of the game I must therefore run an unbearable railroad! Good grief.

For the record I run a far more free-form campaign than just about anyone I have ever had as a DM.

 

[Micah Sweet]

He asserted that comparison of agency is not possible, by dismissing my comparison as resting on a uselessly narrow conception of agency.

I agree with him. Player-authored fiction is not the sole determinator of agency.

 

[mamba]

The final sentence is obviously true. @hawkewyefan, @AbdulAlhazred, @Citizen Mane and I have posted it multiple times in this thread. Here's an instance (post ):

of course it is, I wasn't saying it wasn't, I was saying that is no different from the player not being able to do everything

As for providing examples where the GM does not enjoy a power of veto, what those illustrate is exactly that: that the claim that at most D&D table the GM enjoys an unlimited power of veto is a false one.

A power you have and never exercise is still a power you hold. I guess we will never find out if the DM has that power, because no DM is wielding it this unreasonably. I'd say the DM has that power, but no halfway decent DM will use this except in some very special circumstances.

I think I can even name an example from this thread that shows that the DM can do whatever they want

 

[Oofta]

Okay... so what's the difference between a game that largely ignores the Background Features and one that largely honors them?

Has anyone on this thread said that they largely ignore background features? Because this strawman keeps rearing it's head. I put narrative story logic above background features, that does not mean I ignore them or say "no" on a regular basis.

There's more what for the players in the second game?



Personally, I've been speaking almost exclusively about 5e D&D in this thread. I've run a ton of 5e and have been playing every week for the past two years or so, at least.

There are absolutely things you can do when you play D&D that allow for more agency for the players. The Background features are an example of one such thing.

The background feature (and personal backstory) do come into play in my campaigns. They're greatly overshadowed by all of the other actually important decisions they make.

 

[Maxperson]

Okay... so what's the difference between a game that largely ignores the Background Features and one that largely honors them?

There's more what for the players in the second game?

Nothing. There's more nothing. Only different preferences for what you want out of a game. Why? Because telling me no when it's warranted HONORS my background features, even if it doesn't honor yours. That's why you way diminishes my agency if we try to argue for agency to be some sort of uniform thing. Your way dishonors my background features.

 

[Oofta]

He asserted that comparison of agency is not possible, by dismissing my comparison as resting on a uselessly narrow conception of agency.

Correct me if I'm wrong or misunderstood. You stated that players only have agency if they decide the action and the outcome of that action, correct?