D&D General What is player agency to you?

[mamba]

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.

ok, then I misunderstood. Now sure what you mean though. If your goals are A, B and C, why would these not be goals that show up in the game? Because another player has goals X, Y and Z and the DM somehow focuses on those over yours? Because those are the DM's goals and you have no say in it?

The second one should not really happen if @hawkeyefan follows his one advice he posts here... How would you prevent the first one from happening in your game and why do you assume it happens in theirs?

 

[mamba]

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?

I don't follow. First of all, I denied the use of your class feature on one noble, not every time. Second, the black arrows come from a completely different case where the char was not looking for black arrows either... they are not what you get instead of an audience. In either case the char / player did not get what they were looking for, that is the only commonality here.

 

[mamba]

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.

I guess the question is how bound the DM is by those rules, they could have let the chars find another item, it is one they chose. I am not sure how the rules of the RPG played into what was chosen, but the arrows had some meaning to the chars already. On the other hand, there are probably several other items that do too and could have been chosen instead, giving a different spin on the event.

So in either case the DM directs what is going on. That is why I initially said I am only seeing degrees here, not fundamental differences.

The main difference I am starting to take away from all of this is that BW and similar games are a lot more formal and rules-oppressive (do not want to say heavy, that term is already taken), pressing both the players and DMs in a formal rules corset of interactions, much less freeform than D&D.
I am not saying that makes the game more restrictive, the players probably can do essentially the same things they can do in D&D, but how they go about it is much more dictated by the rules. Or at least it looks like that to me

 

[mamba]

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

as far as I could tell there was no other reason than 'he is an idiot, I need to punish him'. Not really something you need to tell him on top of that

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.

no, it falls under 'every time the DM restricts the player for no reason', and in this case that is about the most drastic 'restriction' there is. Was there a reason for the ghost to be there and possess the guy? Did he get a save? Is this in any way part of the story and helping them getting closer to their goal if they found out why it happened?

It did not read like that to me

 

[mamba]

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.

I am not sure I agree here, you are basically saying 'the more likely I am to succeed, the less control I have'. That is counter-intuitive to me. If you said 'the more permissive the DM is, the less I have to work at solving the problem', then I would agree.

That is not less agency for you though, it simply is less enjoyment. That is a perfectly valid reason not to play that way, I just do not see it having to do much with agency.

 

[Maxperson]

ok, the I misunderstood. Now sure what you mean though. If your goals are A, B and C, why would these not be goals that show up in the game? Because another player has goals X, Y and Z and the DM somehow focuses on those over yours? Because those are the DM's goals and you have no say in it?

The second one should not really happen if @hawkeyefan follows his one advice he posts here... How would you prevent the first one from happening in your game and why do you assume it happens in theirs?

DMs should run the game consistently, so if 3 players want A, B and C agency and I want X, Y and Z, the DM shouldn't be running the game differently depending on the person. In this case the majority should be catered to with the DM also liking that style of play. I should find another game that runs the game with X, Y and Z, because my agency isn't going to be honored in that sort of game and will be minimal.

Sometimes it doesn't line up exactly. The DM runs the game with X, Y and G agency features. I want X, Y and H. Player 2 wants X, Y and F. Player 3 lines up perfectly with X, Y and G. That's very close and the differences probably aren't going to matter much myself and the player who wants F.

 

[Oofta]

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.

In my game if a background feature doesn't work there will be a reason, just like why a spell wouldn't work. But yes ... the DM decides it does not work. Just like I could decide that the chasm is too far to jump across or that a glass wall is too smooth to climb. I don't see the issue.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I guess the question is how bound the DM is by those rules, they could have let the chars find another item, it is one they chose. I am not sure how the rules of the RPG played into what was chosen, but the arrows had some meaning to the chars already. On the other hand, there are probably several other items that do too and could have been chosen instead, giving a different spin on the event.

So in either case the DM directs what is going on. That is why I initially said I am only seeing degrees here, not fundamental differences.

The main difference I am starting to take away from all of this is that BW and similar games are a lot more formal and rules-oppressive (do not want to say heavy, that term is already taken), pressing both the players and DMs in a formal rules corset of interactions, much less freeform than D&D.
I am not saying that makes the game more restrictive, the players probably can do essentially the same things they can do in D&D, but how they go about it is much more dictated by the rules. Or at least it looks like that to me

Maybe not for the players, but it definitely seems more restrictive for the DM, which contributes to my earlier theory that the GMs job in these kinds of games is simply to service the player's desires.

 

[bloodtide]

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.

Well, unlike the Gaming Collective, I say that after very low level nearly every place world wide is a "special" place.

I know there is a huge fan base for the "low magic" just like Earth was setting. Where nearly the whole setting has no magic, or even common sense...but the players still get all the abilities and powers listed in the 'core' rules. So the players a demi gods after first level.

I like the more realistic fantasy approach, where things in the game word setting are made to be at a reasonable level. So a typical important place has plenty of mundane and magical protection. Not that they are invulnerable, but more then enough to sop a character that was over and wants to "pew pew" take over the world.

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.

I'd put forth myself being a Railroad Tycoon and a typical good player a Train Lord.

I will agree that a LOT of peoples idea of an RPG session is a casual, goofy, joke telling, You Tube watching, pop and pretzels kind of time. They want to sit around and "de-stress" and wait for someone to say something so they can for the umpteenth time say "yuck yuck yuck, that's what she said!" This is Fun for many people.

Then, there are us other group of gamers. The Serious Gamers. We are NOT getting together to have a casual, goofy, joke telling, You Tube watching, pop and pretzels kind of time. We are getting together to have a RPG session that is simulated reality, serious, focused, immersive, detailed, intense, exciting, dramatic, some side refreshments kind of time. We want to sit around and have an Adventure.

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.

Yes, I like to handle things in the game to give some players a chance some times.

On a other day, when a jerk player says "my character wants to go to a bar a drink!", I would just kick them out of the game: "feel free to go home and pretend to have your character drink all night long."

But I'd ask about the other side here:

IF I was a "fan of the players/characters" then I would just sit back and LET this jerk of a player "role play" pretending to drink and be cool in a bar for an hour? But..wait...WHY would that NOT be a huge imposition on MY gaming time.

And what about the OTHER four players that wanted to as a group do something else? Are all FOUR of them forced to sit there as this one jerk player wastes an hour of game time? Is that not a huge imposition on FOUR players gaming times?

And, yes, I know many DM would STOP the game and have a heart to heart talk with the player over some tea and maybe come to some understanding.....and WASTE an hour of game time doing that.

I am not that DM......I keep the game running.

as far as I could tell there was no other reason than 'he is an idiot, I need to punish him'. Not really something you need to tell him on top of that

It's not like he does not know I dislike him. And it's not like he even tries a bit to be even a "below average" player.

no, it falls under 'every time the DM restricts the player for no reason', and in this case that is about the most drastic 'restriction' there is. Was there a reason for the ghost to be there and possess the guy? Did he get a save? Is this in any way part of the story and helping them getting closer to their goal if they found out why it happened?

It did not read like that to me

Of course there was a reason....with lots of details and lore, the Invisible Railroad, and the fact that I'm a Smooth Operator....the "average" person in or watching the game would not see anything "wrong".

 

[Maxperson]

I am not sure I agree here, you are basically saying 'the more likely I am to succeed, the less control I have'. That is counter-intuitive to me. If you said 'the more permissive the DM is, the less I have to work at solving the problem', then I would agree.

Not less control. The less the decision matters. If I have 100% control over success, but my decision matters 0%, there's no agency. For my decisions to matter to me(my agency), complete failure due to bad decision making needs to be on the table.