D&D General What is player agency to you?

[AbdulAlhazred]

Short of an unwanted railroad, I would argue that there's literally no such thing as low player agency. Players who want to be in a DM driven play system are getting exactly what they are seeking, which equates to high agency.

Comparing the different kinds of agency from different gaming styles and systems is apples and oranges at best. Rating one low just because it's not the kind that you enjoy isn't accurate. It's just different agency, not low agency.

So it's the apex, right!? Lol. Anyway let's steer ourselves onto some other more productive debate...

 

[Micah Sweet]

You have the order of explanation the wrong way around. I prefer games that are high player agency.

You mean like 4e D&D?

This thread is in D&D general. It is not in D&D Oofta. I'm not obliged to share your rather narrow view of what D&D play is capable of.

EDIT:

You are not the universal arbiter of what counts as playing D&D. I've repeatedly posted actual play examples of 4e D&D, which are high player agency play. I've explained, in quite a bit of detail, the techniques and approaches that have produced that high player agency play.

I've also mentioned, multiple times, that high player agency play is possible in AD&D - I know, because I've done it in the second half of the 1980s - but the system is pretty rickety.

To be fair, 4e as you prefer to play it (ie, with a larger than usual emphasis on player-authored quests) is a pretty small slice of the D&D pie.

 

[pemerton]

Dude's got 30K+ posts, mostly on variations of this exact topic, over the past 15 years.

I'm nothing if not consistent!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

5e has a very detailed social encounter procedure. I would presume it would apply to whatever happens when you have your audience. A bad outcome might even be narrated as the PC not even making it into the room, etc. And if there's no stakes at all, so no need to roll, then presumably the whole thing is just wool gathering, describe some pleasantries and move on.

 

[hawkeyefan]

What were the two options again? I'm sorry, I'm in a lot of threads at the moment.

To largely ignore background features or to largely honor their use.

 

[dersplotter]

I am not sure what the purpose of any conversation is when one side is always assuming all good players and bad DMs, and the other side is always assuming all bad players, and good DMs.

So the above is you. And it's one of the first instances in this thread of someone dividing the conversation into 'sides' after a very early mention by Defcon 1 and then later by Frogreaver.

Is this you as well?

Second, it's best to avoid turning everything into two sides, if you actually want to have a conversation.

One might assume that it's a simple mistake on your part to have missed the regular repeat of your use of the word 'side' by maxperson, oofta, frogreaver and mamba - all on the same 'side' - and to have accidentally picked up on a rare repeat of your terminology by 'the other side'.

Since that's the case you're not in any position to try and play tone police or lecture others on 'actually wanting a conversation'.

Given your very early use of the tactic of 'turning everything into sides' in this thread, it's an exercise for the reader as to the level of hypocrisy involved. They can each make their own judgement as to the credibilty of your sudden claims to the moral high ground.

 

[Micah Sweet]

5e has a very detailed social encounter procedure. I would presume it would apply to whatever happens when you have your audience. A bad outcome might even be narrated as the PC not even making it into the room, etc. And if there's no stakes at all, so no need to roll, then presumably the whole thing is just wool gathering, describe some pleasantries and move on.

5e's social encounter system is not my preference, but if you like it, go right ahead.

 

[Micah Sweet]

To largely ignore background features or to largely honor their use.

Largely honor, for sure.

 

[pemerton]

But comparing D&D to PbtA games is comparing apples to oranges.

I compare mainstream 80s/90s style D&D to all sorts of things. Including 4e D&D. They're not apples and oranges. They're all FRPGs.

The principles and techniques of Burning Wheel are highly applicable to 4e D&D. Here's an old thread about it: https://www.enworld.org/threads/pemertonian-scene-framing-a-good-approach-to-d-d-4e.333786/

Given that skill challenges are a type of extended, close scene resolution of the sort found in Maelstrom Storytelling and HeroWars/Quest, the advice from those games is also highly useful in GMing 4e D&D. I report that from experience.

I don't think that the principles and techniques from Apocalypse World are as easily applicable to D&D play, but that could just be a limit of my own imagination.

 

[mamba]

Did I say anyone did? Or did I ask a question?

you asked a question about such a game. Given that no such game exists, it will have to go unanswered...