D&D General What is player agency to you?

[Micah Sweet]

I'm thinking of feats like Lucky, Keen Mind, and Leadership. Lucky gives the player the ability to make rerolls whenever they like, to represent that their character is extraordinarily lucky. Keen Mind gives the ability to know certain details without having to make a roll at all. Leadership allows the PC to influence others by granting temp hit points, again, no roll needed. These things all just happen.

For spells, there are dozens of spells that just make things happen beyond the character. But they have the lampshade of magic, so people tend to accept them without question. But if we back up out of the game world, and we just look at these things as "moves" available to the player, then it's very easy to see them as I've described them. And when we speak of player agency, I think it's important to view things at that level.

I try to back up out of the game world as little as possible, and the more a mechanic forces an effect without an in-universe cause, the less I like it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I try to back up out of the game world as little as possible, and the more a mechanic forces an effect without an in-universe cause, the less I like it.

Well, I only describe it that way so that the label of "magic" means less. I don't really see any of them as examples of effects that don't have an in-universe cause. Each of them does.

 

[Oofta]

I'm thinking of feats like Lucky, Keen Mind, and Leadership. Lucky gives the player the ability to make rerolls whenever they like, to represent that their character is extraordinarily lucky. Keen Mind gives the ability to know certain details without having to make a roll at all. Leadership allows the PC to influence others by granting temp hit points, again, no roll needed. These things all just happen.

For spells, there are dozens of spells that just make things happen beyond the character. But they have the lampshade of magic, so people tend to accept them without question. But if we back up out of the game world, and we just look at these things as "moves" available to the player, then it's very easy to see them as I've described them. And when we speak of player agency, I think it's important to view things at that level.

Lucky is a bit of an odd duck but there are times when spells won't work. Anti-magic zones, immunity, counterspell, spells like private sanctum that stop teleportation, etc. Do spells almost always work? Sure. So do background features.

 

[Maxperson]

If he is in your game, he is not the DM… you are looking at this from the player perspective, he is not. He says it reduces his agency as a DM. At least that is how I understand it

No. I'm talking about as a player. If I'm a player and I'm looking for A, B and C to fulfill my goals and desires, and I'm in @hawkeyefan's game and he's giving me X, Y and Z, then he's reducing my agency by forcing aspects that are unimportant or even detrimental to my agency. X, Y and Z are what he prefers and looks for to increase his agency when he plays, but he's assuming that his personal preferences are universal.

As DM nothing can reduce my agency unless I let it, since the DM in D&D has so much authority. Not that I hit conflicts where that becomes an issue, because I look for players who enjoy a similar style to mine.

 

[Maxperson]

I didn't read it that way. I'm not really concerned about the DM's agency.

I took it that he was claiming we can't compare player agency in D&D to other games, so I pointed out that throughout this entire thread, I've only been speaking about D&D, and I've experienced different levels of player agency in different games of D&D.

Which means, there are things that can be done to increase or decrease player agency, if so desired, when playing D&D.

I've primarily been using playstyles as the differentiator. D&D can be used for many different playstyles and agency will differ from table to table depending on playstyle. Different games will be aimed at different styles of play and are often built with specific types of agency in mind.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I guess I was not really asking that.... I knew the answer already, as my post was supposed to show

What lead to this was the following exchange:

me: "I do not see a fundamental difference between steering the game by denying an audience and steering the game via having the chars find black arrows"

you: "I'm pretty sure I quoted the text upthread from the Burning Wheel rulebook, that tells the player that "If the story doesn't interest you, it's your job to create interesting situations and involve yourself""

[not really sure how that is an answer, but I ran with it instead of asking. I then tried a different approach to get to the answer I was looking for]

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

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

me: "so where do goals and the actions to accomplish them come from?"

What I really am still looking for is the answer to my original question, so let me rephrase that:

I see no fundamental difference between steering the game by denying an audience and steering the game via having the chars find black arrows. To me this is a difference in degree only. Why do you think / insist that it is more than that?

As a player let's suppose I took the noble background because I am interested in court intrigue and such things. You deny my use of my class feature to get an audience and hand me a black arrow, which is basically a hook to go dragon hunting instead. How am equally empowered with agency by that?

 

[Mort]

Lucky is a bit of an odd duck but there are times when spells won't work. Anti-magic zones, immunity, counterspell, spells like private sanctum that stop teleportation, etc. Do spells almost always work? Sure. So do background features.

Well they still "work" it's just that there are countermeasures.

Just like if the PCs actively anger the king enough that he puts out a decree blocking any noble audiences for them that's a countermeasure that should overcome position of privilege.

So I'm not actually sure we are disagreeing.

 

[Maxperson]

I didn’t mean your game specifically. If there are two games of 5e, and they work identically except one honors background features and one denies them, a player moving from the one that denies them to the one that honors them clearly does not have their agency reduced.

Meaning, there are things we can do when running/playing 5e that can increase or decrease player agency.

This is not an absolute. If I'm in your game with 4 other players and none of us wants background features, forcing them on us reduces our agency. You're not giving us what we want or would choose to have.

So while yes there are things that would increase or decrease player agency in 5e, they remain specific to individuals, tables and playstyles.

 

[Mort]

This is not an absolute. If I'm in your game with 4 other players and none of us wants background features, forcing them on us reduces our agency. You're not giving us what we want or would choose to have.

So while yes there are things that would increase or decrease player agency in 5e, they remain specific to individuals, tables and playstyles.

I'm confused by this. If background features are an option, but the players choose to not use that option - how is that, in any way, a reduction in agency?

I mean, unless the DM somehow institutes penalties for NOT using the background features - but that just seems weirdly unlikely.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So the 'you fail' part of a failed test


yes, precisely, you start framing now. You do not leave it at 'you fail', you add 'and this happens'. That is you 'directing' the game, just like we were 'directing' the game by saying 'you fail' in the first place.

But I guess I get your distinction now, in your case the failure is determined 'outside' the DM while in our case it is 'inside' the DM. In both cases the result of the failed check influences the narrative, influenced by the DM. In yours that is more directly, whereas I see myself more asking 'what now' than setting something up right away. That also sounds like agency, the players decide the 'what to do' part...

Do you prefer Burning Wheel or Torchbearer, which one is closer to D&D? From my 1000 mile view that is TB. Any opinion on TB1 vs TB2? I see mixed feelings on that.

So, one of the big things that is going on in these games, maybe a bit more significant in PbtA than BW, is how the GM is bound by explicit rule-like principles. Yes, once a PC fails and then we move on the GM frames a new scene. That scene MUST meet specific criteria! Those are very different criteria than in trad game play. IMHO this is where the vast majority of what makes Narrativist play arises.