D&D General What is player agency to you?

[Aldarc]

So D&D is low agency because they don't work like your preferred games? Because you keep bringing in other games that simply work differently with different goals and rules of play. It's not particularly helpful when that is all you ever fall back on.

I would not go as far as to say that the D&D is "low agency," but I would potentially say that in comparison with some of the games in discussion, D&D tends towards "lower agency" with its players. There may be a myriad of reasons for that, and some of those reasons for that have been fairly self-admitted, like in the below:

But yes in D&D the DM is by default responsible for creating and describing the world. Just like I don't have personal control over the world in real life yet feel like I still have a fair amount of agency, the players in my game also have it. Even though we're not playing a shared fiction narrative game. Because that's not a style of game I would enjoy, either as GM or player.

Since I feel that you may need the reassurance: there is nothing wrong with that or your gaming preferences. It is what it is.

It's fine that you prefer a different game. I've looked into other games (Dungeon World in particular), reading the rules and listening to streams. They just aren't what I want in a game whether I was GM or player. That's perfectly okay, to each their own. But comparing D&D to PbtA games is comparing apples to oranges. The games are different and take different approaches to agency.

Here is where I think that there is nothing wrong with saying that some games afford less agency to their players than others. I think that comes part and parcel with saying that "the games are different and take different approaches to agency." Sometimes that naturally means less player agency and sometimes that means more player agency. When some people talk about ways that players could have more agency in a given game as in other games, it's abundantly clear that other people would dislike those things.

One problem that I have with these sort of discussions, however, is this sense I get that some people want to pretend that their preferred games (typically however they prefer running D&D) have as much player agency as other games while also talking about all the ways that they intentionally restrict player agency as a GM or how D&D doesn't afford the same degree of player agency as other games. In my opinion, trying to depict these comparisons as "apples and oranges" seems like a cheap way to avoid scrutiny or comparisons of player agency between or within games entirely.

My D&D games are very player directed. You seem incapable of acknowledging that for many people not being able to change the world outside of their PCs does not inhibit their sense of agency. In D&D I am not a storyteller. I set the stage, envision motivations and goals for actors other than the PCs and then the players run with it. A story emerges, the players interact with the setting, but I am not controlling anything.

Again, I think that it's fine to say that you run a higher agency game for D&D in some key areas, but that you also intentionally restrict player agency in other areas, such as authority over the fiction outside of the action declarations of the player characters. Even if this does not inhibit the sense of player agency for you or most people - who likely don't care either way or bother posting their strongly held opinions on online message boards - it definitely does restrict player agency. I do not believe that my only agency as a player is restricted to the action declarations of my player character in the fiction. My reason for this belief is the simple fact that there are other tabletop roleplaying games where my agency as a player does exist outside of this artificial boundary.

Burning Wheel and Apocalypse World might not be all that relevant to mainstream D&D, but a collaborative approach to worldbuilding absolutely is. The most popular D&D actual play, Critical Role, absolutely features some PC centered collaborative worldbuilding. The neotrad demographic is a strong element of the current D&D fanbase, particularly its younger demographic.

This trend appears as if it will only continue if the playtest previews of Critical Role's Daggerheart is any indication.

 

[pemerton]

there is nothing wrong with saying that some games afford less agency to their players than others. I think that comes part and parcel with saying that "the games are different and take different approaches to agency." Sometimes that naturally means less player agency and sometimes that means more player agency. When some people talk about ways that players could have more agency in a given game as in other games, it's abundantly clear that other people would dislike those things.

One problem that I have with these sort of discussions, however, is this sense I get that some people want to pretend that their preferred games (typically however they prefer running D&D) have as much player agency as other games while also talking about all the ways that they intentionally restrict player agency as a GM or how D&D doesn't afford the same degree of player agency as other games. In my opinion, trying to depict these comparisons as "apples and oranges" seems like a cheap way to avoid scrutiny or comparisons of player agency between or within games entirely.

Agreed. @soviet has made the same point upthread.

It verges on contradiction to assert that there are no comparisons of player agency to be made, while going into all this detail about the GM's power to establish the fiction in one's preferred game compared to other games.

 

[Oofta]

Burning Wheel and Apocalypse World might not be all that relevant to mainstream D&D, but a collaborative approach to worldbuilding absolutely is. The most popular D&D actual play, Critical Role, absolutely features some PC centered collaborative worldbuilding. The neotrad demographic is a strong element of the current D&D fanbase, particularly its younger demographic.

I'm not sure I see all that much collaborative world building in Critical Role, unless you have info I do not. Matt is a pretty old school DM. Matt and his players obviously work together a great deal on backstories (if Matt uses Backgrounds it's not obvious) and the players have a lot of freedom on choosing what they do. I do the same with my players and pretty much always have. But there's a difference between Sam building a backstory where in campaign 2 where he's playing a goblin that was originally a halfling that had been cursed (reincarnated?) as a goblin and having narrative control over the world outside of his PC. Other than the occasional "How do you do this" of course. But Matt is definitely the referee and makes the final call on what the players can and cannot do.

Detailed backgrounds? Check. Personal goals? Check. Character and inter-party relationship growth? Check. All those things being stuff I've seen in D&D for decades? Check.

These kind of things are nothing new because D&D rules have always been just the starting point for the game. It doesn't tell you how to build relationships, political alliances or any number of other things that some games have rules for. But when people sit down to play make-believe things like this will happen unless there are guardrails in place to stop them.

NOTE: I haven't started campaign 3 of Critical role. For whatever reasons I started with 2 and then went back to 1 which I'm still working on. But I'm assuming nothing dramatic has changed between 2 and 3.

 

[Oofta]

I would not go as far as to say that the D&D is "low agency," but I would potentially say that in comparison with some of the games in discussion, D&D tends towards "lower agency" with its players. There may be a myriad of reasons for that, and some of those reasons for that have been fairly self-admitted, like in the below:

Since I feel that you may need the reassurance: there is nothing wrong with that or your gaming preferences. It is what it is.


Here is where I think that there is nothing wrong with saying that some games afford less agency to their players than others. I think that comes part and parcel with saying that "the games are different and take different approaches to agency." Sometimes that naturally means less player agency and sometimes that means more player agency. When some people talk about ways that players could have more agency in a given game as in other games, it's abundantly clear that other people would dislike those things.

One problem that I have with these sort of discussions, however, is this sense I get that some people want to pretend that their preferred games (typically however they prefer running D&D) have as much player agency as other games while also talking about all the ways that they intentionally restrict player agency as a GM or how D&D doesn't afford the same degree of player agency as other games. In my opinion, trying to depict these comparisons as "apples and oranges" seems like a cheap way to avoid scrutiny or comparisons of player agency between or within games entirely.


Again, I think that it's fine to say that you run a higher agency game for D&D in some key areas, but that you also intentionally restrict player agency in other areas, such as authority over the fiction outside of the action declarations of the player characters. Even if this does not inhibit the sense of player agency for you or most people - who likely don't care either way or bother posting their strongly held opinions on online message boards - it definitely does restrict player agency. I do not believe that my only agency as a player is restricted to the action declarations of my player character in the fiction. My reason for this belief is the simple fact that there are other tabletop roleplaying games where my agency as a playr does exist outside of this artificial boundary.


This trend appears as if it will only continue if the playtest previews of Critical Role's Daggerheart is any indication.

First, I don't think agency is inherently good or bad. I will also admit that if your group is playing a module you're likely to have less freedom of choice. I'm playing Curse of Strahd and even though the lanes are quite wide, it's still a linear adventure. On the other hand, agency is limited in real life. We don't get to know outcomes of every decision perfectly even when we're successful.

I do not think D&D grants the most agency of any possible game. I think different games offer different experiences and different types of agency. I enjoy life even if I could wish for more perfect knowledge and control of outcomes. Different games have different types of agency and in many ways there just is no direct comparison. People have been debating what agency means as long as we've been able to form the concept.

However that does not mean that players automatically have incredibly low agency in D&D. It depends on what the group enjoys, what the goals of play are, what they want out of the game. A lot of people simply aren't particularly spontaneously creative and feel put on the spot if they need to come up with ideas extemporaneously. They aren't comfortable with ad-libbing or choosing directions, especially not on the fly. For a lot of people the type of agency supported by other games would be incredibly stressful and make the game far less enjoyable.

I doubt many people want a railroad (and true railroads are vanishingly rare), but a lot of people? A lot of people just want to relax, tell bad jokes and puns, sit back and roll some dice to relieve the stress of the world. So when people say games are railroads unless they use Burning Wheel techniques or that D&D automatically always has very low agency? When they put any game that players limited scope of control in an incredibly negative light? That's what I have a problem with.

 

[Mort]

By

Burning Wheel and Apocalypse World might not be all that relevant to mainstream D&D, but a collaborative approach to worldbuilding absolutely is. The most popular D&D actual play, Critical Role, absolutely features some PC centered collaborative worldbuilding. The neotrad demographic is a strong element of the current D&D fanbase, particularly its younger demographic.

I haven't kept up with campaign 3, but campaigns 1 and 2 seemed as traditional as it gets.

The players explore the world that Matt presents to them. Sure, they seem to provide heaps of backstory for Mercer to work with, and he incorporates it well, but there never seems to be a question of who's laying out the world.

 

[pemerton]

So when people say games are railroads unless they use Burning Wheel techniques or that D&D automatically always has very low agency?

Can you please stop attributing views to me that I don't hold?

I have not said that D&D automatically always has very low agency. From a recent reply TO YOU:

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.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm not sure I see all that much collaborative world building in Critical Role, unless you have info I do not. Matt is a pretty old school DM. Matt and his players obviously work together a great deal on backstories (if Matt uses Backgrounds it's not obvious) and the players have a lot of freedom on choosing what they do. I do the same with my players and pretty much always have. But there's a difference between Sam building a backstory where in campaign 2 where he's playing a goblin that was originally a halfling that had been cursed (reincarnated?) as a goblin and having narrative control over the world outside of his PC. Other than the occasional "How do you do this" of course. But Matt is definitely the referee and makes the final call on what the players can and cannot do.

Detailed backgrounds? Check. Personal goals? Check. Character and inter-party relationship growth? Check. All those things being stuff I've seen in D&D for decades? Check.

These kind of things are nothing new because D&D rules have always been just the starting point for the game. It doesn't tell you how to build relationships, political alliances or any number of other things that some games have rules for. But when people sit down to play make-believe things like this will happen unless there are guardrails in place to stop them.

NOTE: I haven't started campaign 3 of Critical role. For whatever reasons I started with 2 and then went back to 1 which I'm still working on. But I'm assuming nothing dramatic has changed between 2 and 3.

In play, I would agree with you regarding CR: Matt runs his table very much like any traditional D&D game, where the players are mostly restricted to taking actions and making choices through their PCs. I think what some people are trying to get at here, however, is that its pretty clear that players have a strong influence on the course of play through the PCs goals, ie, player-authored quests. A lot of the events in the game are driven by areas individual players wanted to explore, likely worked out between Matt and the player out of game, rather than just Matt's own ideas.

I do that too, so I see the point and understand how that can affect player agency. But in play, its still pretty mainstream D&D in so far as agency is concerned.

 

[Maxperson]

This strikes me as implausible.

I have left games because I lacked agency in them. I have made deliberate decisions in the context of choosing games, and GMing games, having regard to the effect on player agency. In my Classic Traveller game, as I reported in some actual play reports, there was a sequence of sessions where the game drifted into lower-agency, high GM-exposition, play, and I took deliberate steps to change that.

What I meant by that is that it's an exercise in futility to try and compare the levels of the different kinds of agency that the different playstyles use. There's no point in comparing the apples and oranges. Of course the type of agency you prefer matters and if you aren't getting it, you should find a game that provides it for you.

 

[Maxperson]

Agreed. @soviet has made the same point upthread.

It verges on contradiction to assert that there are no comparisons of player agency to be made, while going into all this detail about the GM's power to establish the fiction in one's preferred game compared to other games.

That's not exactly what I said, though. I said you can't compare levels of agency in the different styles.

What is high agency in traditional play won't match up to high agency in narrative play and vice versa. That doesn't make agency low in traditional play. They're different kinds of agency or at least look to different things to establish agency.

You CAN compare the different kinds of agency in a pros and cons manner to see which might be better for you and why, or to discuss what you personally think are the better aspects of agency.

 

[Umbran]

Here is where I think that there is nothing wrong with saying that some games afford less agency to their players than others. I think that comes part and parcel with saying that "the games are different and take different approaches to agency." Sometimes that naturally means less player agency and sometimes that means more player agency. When some people talk about ways that players could have more agency in a given game as in other games, it's abundantly clear that other people would dislike those things.

I find I agree a great deal with some of what Maxperson says just above, but I'll put it my own way...

What you say in the quote also hands us a view as how it may less valuable to talk about which games have more/less agency than to talk about other aspects of agency.

First and foremost, there is no measure of agency. We can't say "Game X provides 35 Standard Agency Units, while Game Y only provides 17." Subjective valuations are just dicey.

Second, agency that the players don't want is of no value. If the player does not want to engage in the behaviors through which a game provides agency, that agency might as well be considered not present in the game for them. Indeed, that agency may even have a negative valence on the play for them. Thus, the agency afforded by a given game is, in a practical sense, subjective.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, how much agency is provided matters less than how players feel about their agency. Ultimately, agency in and of itself is not a goal. Players having a good time is the goal, right?

Thus, the more/less question may not inform us of anything useful to us as GMs, or even as game designers, whereas the what, how, and why of various modes of agency likely will. The latter is what we should be considering when trying to choose a game for our players, rather than the former, right?

And, while some here are kind enough to say "that play you do is perfectly okay", trying to rank games by more/less agency can still look a lot like agency-machismo, or "agency-sizing", if you get my drift. Culturally speaking, the idea that "more is better" follows such efforts around like a puppy, whether you like it or not, especially when it is only the advocates for agency are engaged in the effort, such that the "that play you do is perfectly okay" can seem like a condescension.