D&D General What is player agency to you?

[Micah Sweet]

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.

Yeah, this is a big part of why I don't like narrative play. Lots of rules constraining the GM.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

You're missing the forest for the trees. It's not the specific example, but the concept. So maybe we want background abilities, but don't want them to always work. Maybe it's some other way he runs his games that we don't want to happen.

Agency is not an objectively measurable thing. It varies from game to game, style to style, individual to individual.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

Sure, but those things tend to work in defined ways. There are mechanics that determine how they function. Sure, their use is up to the DM, but if every major encounter takes place in an anti-magic zone, most players are gonna complain about that.

With the background features, yes, there could be reasons they may not work... but most of those reasons aren't nearly as codified as things like counterspell and the like. For the most part, people have been talking abou the DM just deciding by fiat that something can't work, very often (but not always) deciding the circumstances to explain why not on the spot.

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.

I think you're mistaking a person's preferred amount of agency with agency itself.

I'm playing in a 5e game right now. It has less agency than I'd prefer. I'm all right with that, given the other circumstances (these are my good friends and I enjoy their company as much as the game, and it's not meant to be a long campaign). This doesn't mean that this game has as much agency as our last DM allowed.

After this game, our next game is probably going to be Delta Green. I already know going in that this game is going to have limited agency simply based on the nature of the game, both in theme and mechanics. We're going to be interacting with the GM's mystery... that will be the focus of play.

That I'll happily accept those limitations and play in the game doesn't change the amount of agency it allows its players.

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.

How can I force background features on anyone? They're there to use if you like or not.

If you prefer a game with less agency, that's fine, but it doesn't make a game that allows for more somehow have less. I don't see how this makes sense at all.

 

[Mort]

You're missing the forest for the trees. It's not the specific example, but the concept. So maybe we want background abilities, but don't want them to always work. Maybe it's some other way he runs his games that we don't want to happen.

Agency is not an objectively measurable thing. It varies from game to game, style to style, individual to individual.

As murky as agency is (and obviously it is, the length of this thread shows it), it's still rather specific. Higher agency generally means greater meaningful player choice within the game. Lower agency generally means less meaningful player choice within the game.

Your example was one of giving the players increased meaningful choice (which, presumably, they could choose to or choose not to exercise) and somehow that gives them less agency?

I certainly understand disliking aspects of a game or a particular table, but the problem isn't always (or even often) agency - that's a rather specific one.

 

[bloodtide]

in case you were wondering where your players lack agency...

Yea, I knew this one.

THIS is why you would get a complaint of lack of agency. You literally took control of the PC on a whim - simply because you objected to how they were roleplaying.

This would anger just about anyone!

Though remember the player (still) does not know the reason and why it happened. It's not like I make a big announcement.

This has to be the #1 most egregious example of taking away player agency. This is worse than rocks fall you die.

This falls under "anything a player does not like takes away player agency"....or to put it simply: EVERYTHING takes away player agency. There are a bunch of effects that can effect or "control" a character in D&D. I don't agree that a DM can never use charm or hold or domination effects on a PC.

Almost impossible to find Dragon that leaves the groups wandering aimlessly yields a near complete lack of agency - and even if they are partly to blame for not finding/remember/using the clues, that doesn't take away from the fact that they currently have little to no ability to effect the campaign.

The players are "free" to do their dumb idea of "wandering around like idiots and hopping to bump into the dragon". I this not pure agency here?

I will agree that when a player character acts like an idiot, they have no ability to effect much of anything. A super dumb character watching a herd of goats does not effect much in the world.

Whether they are 'bad' ideas or not, it sounds like you are shooting most all of them down outright - another agency impacting move.

Right....another problem I have with the whole "player agency" thing. Some ideas will be shot down quickly: because not EVERY random idea a player says lets them alter game reality.

Like in a past game, group D, had the great idea of making a giant huge crossbow and then shooting the dragon when it came to town. Of course the PCs had no skills, abilities or magic to do this. It's flat out (near) impossible for the group to do. But even IF I was a "fan of them" type DM, it would still take at LEAST a year to build...way beyond the adventure timeline. And...again...IF I was a "fan" and they did build it......and, somehow, got the dragon in range...and IF they hit.....well it would only do some damage and would be unlikely to slay the dragon with one hit anyway. And...sure...maybe they could make a giant huge bolt of dragon slaying.....but you know regular hand held or fired weapons can do that.

-In short, your campaign scenario along with the way you DM has led to an environment where the players basically have to wander around in the wilderness in hopes of finding the dragon. They can't go randomly talk to townspeople, they may get possessed by a ghost and sit there doing nothing for an hour. They can't make plans to get an advantage of any kind because you always say no. And to top it off, they can't even wait on the Dragon to just come to them because you don't advance time.

Your being a bit one sided here.

Note groups A and B spent a lot of time in town doing things. Nothing "bad" happened to them. Group Z did not stay in town....and player Kyle wanted to ruin the game with his dumb "lets pretend to drink for six hours" move...so yea, he got possessed.

They can "make" any plans they want....but they can't change the game reality. The town alchemest does not have 50,000 pounds of explosives on a shelf for salf for 5 gold JUST as the group came up with the dumb idea to blow up the dragons cave.

And it's not like advancing time would have helped the group of wandering idiots....ok, time flies, game over.

I actually was leaning toward the players just being a bit too entitled and that you mostly ran a normalish game, but it's not them, it's you.

Oh no.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Sure, but those things tend to work in defined ways. There are mechanics that determine how they function. Sure, their use is up to the DM, but if every major encounter takes place in an anti-magic zone, most players are gonna complain about that.

With the background features, yes, there could be reasons they may not work... but most of those reasons aren't nearly as codified as things like counterspell and the like. For the most part, people have been talking abou the DM just deciding by fiat that something can't work, very often (but not always) deciding the circumstances to explain why not on the spot.



I think you're mistaking a person's preferred amount of agency with agency itself.

I'm playing in a 5e game right now. It has less agency than I'd prefer. I'm all right with that, given the other circumstances (these are my good friends and I enjoy their company as much as the game, and it's not meant to be a long campaign). This doesn't mean that this game has as much agency as our last DM allowed.

After this game, our next game is probably going to be Delta Green. I already know going in that this game is going to have limited agency simply based on the nature of the game, both in theme and mechanics. We're going to be interacting with the GM's mystery... that will be the focus of play.

That I'll happily accept those limitations and play in the game doesn't change the amount of agency it allows its players.



How can I force background features on anyone? They're there to use if you like or not.

If you prefer a game with less agency, that's fine, but it doesn't make a game that allows for more somehow have less. I don't see how this makes sense at all.

I haven't seen anyone claim they would decide the reason a background ability isn't going to work on the spot.

 

[Maxperson]

I think you're mistaking a person's preferred amount of agency with agency itself.

No. See Umbran's response above.

I'm playing in a 5e game right now. It has less agency than I'd prefer. I'm all right with that, given the other circumstances (these are my good friends and I enjoy their company as much as the game, and it's not meant to be a long campaign). This doesn't mean that this game has as much agency as our last DM allowed.

After this game, our next game is probably going to be Delta Green. I already know going in that this game is going to have limited agency simply based on the nature of the game, both in theme and mechanics. We're going to be interacting with the GM's mystery... that will be the focus of play.

That I'll happily accept those limitations and play in the game doesn't change the amount of agency it allows its players.

How can I force background features on anyone? They're there to use if you like or not.

If you prefer a game with less agency, that's fine, but it doesn't make a game that allows for more somehow have less. I don't see how this makes sense at all.

Sure. You can accept less of your type of agency if you choose. I can see myself playing in some of the narrativist systems short term to have fun with friends. My agency would be more limited there, but I'd still have fun.

 

[mamba]

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

He can clarify if he wants to... it was the only way the reply made sense to me

EDIT: I guess he did

 

[Maxperson]

As murky as agency is (and obviously it is, the length of this thread shows it), it's still rather specific. Higher agency generally means greater meaningful player choice within the game. Lower agency generally means less meaningful player choice within the game.

Sure, but as I've pointed out, the more narrativist(say yes or roll) methods of running the game remove/lower the meaning of my choices. They lower my agency, even if they simultaneously raise yours.

 

[Mort]

This falls under "anything a player does not like takes away player agency"....or to put it simply: EVERYTHING takes away player agency. There are a bunch of effects that can effect or "control" a character in D&D. I don't agree that a DM can never use charm or hold or domination effects on a PC.

There are effects that can control a character in D&D, true.

But they do not manifest because the DM just decided he wanted to put the PC in his place - which is exactly what happened here.

You decided, because you didn't like the way the player was roleplaying, to take away his ability to game for an hour. That is a clear and unambiguous denial of agency.

We are over 2,000 posts on this thread most of them a back and forth on what exactly high and low agency, denial of agency etc. even is. But I will be surprised if ANY of those people disagree that the action above (possessing the PC because he was, in your opinion, gaming wrong) was not a massive denial of agency.

Edit: and aside from agency concerns, you sidelined a player for an hour because you didn't agree with how he was gaming. You play for what 4 hours at a time? That's a huge imposition on his gaming time.