D&D General What is player agency to you?

[hawkeyefan]

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

I’d say there’s been plenty of that. Many instances of saying the use makes no sense or what have you.

Given how little most folks commenting here seem to consider background features, I highly doubt they’re designing encounters with them in mind, so if a player ever did bring one up, I think it’d very likely be a judgment in the moment.

However, I don’t think we can say exactly how much, since no one except me has offered any actual play examples involving background features. Instead, it’s been hypotheticals that either lack detail or else are totally absurd.

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.

That’s not how it works. Your enjoyment is one thing… and it’s perfectly valid. But that doesn’t change the amount of agency available in play.

 

[Maxperson]

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

I'll own up to this one. There are 10 bajillion+1 different ways things can play out in a game and there's no way I can foresee anywhere near all of them. It's conceivable, though rare, that a set of circumstances will come up in game play where an ability working as written just doesn't make any sense at all. In such a situation I will rule that it fails, though it will almost always be immediately apparently why I ruled that way and the players can see the reasoning.

 

[mamba]

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.

well yes, you are a party, it cannot really work that way. So you are not talking about in game goals, you are taking about preferences how to play, got it

 

[mamba]

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.

we are saying the same thing, I just do not call it agency

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

Well, in the case of something like the anti-magic zone, that’s typically something set ahead of time. Either some fantastic location or maybe the court of a powerful entity with magical defenses… whatever. I don’t think it’s something decided on a whim.

For something like the Position of Privilege feature, it boils down to social interaction, which is usually more ad hoc at the table based on rolls and/or roleplay. There may be notes in DM prep that are a factor, but I don’t expect that’s always the case.

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’m not surprised based on how you’ve described your game.

 

[mamba]

I’d say there’s been plenty of that. Many instances of saying the use makes no sense or what have you.

I have no problem with it being on the spot. If the game goes in a direction I did not anticipate, then I might not have decided on stuff beforehand. It really does not matter to me whether I made the same decision in prep or during play - or if some other DM did in their game

 

[Mort]

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.

But, for that player, you didn't keep the game running. You literally took away his character for an hour, just because you disagreed with his gaming.

If you don't want any distractions, TELL the players that!

 

[Oofta]

Well, in the case of something like the anti-magic zone, that’s typically something set ahead of time. Either some fantastic location or maybe the court of a powerful entity with magical defenses… whatever. I don’t think it’s something decided on a whim.

For something like the Position of Privilege feature, it boils down to social interaction, which is usually more ad hoc at the table based on rolls and/or roleplay. There may be notes in DM prep that are a factor, but I don’t expect that’s always the case.

I'm not just making up ways to say "no" on a whim. It's annoying that you keep implying that I'm doing stuff like this in order to thwart the player somehow or because I just don't feel like it. I've explained repeatedly situations where it wouldn't work in my campaign, that the party is in the land of the giants who don't give a flying fig about humanoids, much less humanoid royalty. It's a well established aspect of the campaign.

 

[Oofta]

But, for that player, you didn't keep the game running. You literally took away his character for an hour, just because you disagreed with his gaming.

If you don't want any distractions, TELL the players that!

They stated early on that they don't believe in talking to people about issues at the table.

 

[bloodtide]

But, for that player, you didn't keep the game running. You literally took away his character for an hour, just because you disagreed with his gaming.

If you don't want any distractions, TELL the players that!

I did keep the game running for everyone else. The good of the many trumps the good on the one.

Every player in my game knows I demand no distractions.