D&D General What is player agency to you?

[pemerton]

Yes, the DM has to be restricted if you want to ensure 'good behavior' instead of just expect it.

Good behaviour isn't relevant. And in a voluntary social pastime, I think ensure and expect are co-extensive.

What I want to ensure is the following: dramatic needs => rising action => crisis/climax, with the content and outcomes being surprising to all participants, and in the role structure of mainstream RPGing which means that no one has to form a view as to what the story should be. Each can just do their distinct job.

But these declarations and putting your wager on the table as a player also means the rules are much more formal and prescriptive on the player side. At least that would be my expectation based on some comment of yours, not sure I would find that again though It sounded like the player basically says something along the line of 'I want to achieve X and am willing to risk Y for it' and then that gets resolved. There is not really a formal 'and risk Y' in D&D

What is at stake may be implicit, or explicit. If it's not clear, it's always possible to ask!

But I think it's correct to say that a lot of D&D play seems to involve dice being rolled in circumstances of low-or-no stakes, basically just for colour or a bit of "sound and movement".

 

[mamba]

They are no more 'rules oppressive' than D&D. What can be more 'oppressive' than a GM with absolute power

the DM is not a rule, should probably have used rules-dominated or something like that

The rules of DW simply clearly establishes how the process overall is supposed to work

that is what I meant, more formal, structured, call it what you want

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, arrows or whatever aside, narrativist systems, at least of a PbtA sort of ilk (and I'd say FitD, and Agon both also exhibit this, and BW has a pretty strong flavor of it too) the GM being cast in a specific role which includes following certain rules is a VERY important aspect of the process of play of those games and how they are structured. I mean, sure, the GM and the players are only as much bound by the rules of an RPG as they feel like, but if you ignore these concepts in play you will be playing a very significantly different game in fundamental ways! A GM in Dungeon World can ONLY make moves as described by the game's rules. The moves they make, and way they frame scenes, and the prep (fronts and maps) the develop are specifically intended to fulfill goals which support the agenda of the game. This agenda includes, centrally, a game which shares direction between the different participants, by design.

Dungeon World and D&D, as examples of generally Narrativist and Trad games, are fundamentally different, trust me. The GM does not 'direct what is going on' in a correctly run Dungeon World game. Yes, they frame the scenes and introduce elements via moves, so they have a part in direction, but they can only introduce stuff that plays to the characters. The GM's part in decision making DOES NOT function to put bounds on play.

They are no more 'rules oppressive' than D&D. What can be more 'oppressive' than a GM with absolute power and only the most informal of mechanisms (basically complaining) by which anyone else can get a say outside of "my character says X"? D&D is far LESS freeform than Dungeon World, for sure! The rules of DW simply clearly establishes how the process overall is supposed to work. Its actually IMHO empowering and freeing as it clarifies play immensely and lets it be centered on what is interesting in ways that are difficult to achieve in trad play.

Its oppressive to the DM, from the perspective of mainstream D&D play, and that of previous non-4e (with exclusively player-authored quests) editions. A lot of people seem to like this, and that's great. But it does restrict the DMs choices greatly in comparison, and is not a game style I have any interest in.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Good behaviour isn't relevant. And in a voluntary social pastime, I think ensure and expect are co-extensive.

What I want to ensure is the following: dramatic needs => rising action => crisis/climax, with the content and outcomes being surprising to all participants, and in the role structure of mainstream RPGing which means that no one has to form a view as to what the story should be. Each can just do their distinct job.

I specifically don't want rules to encourage any of these things, except possibly surprise from all participants (which random tables handle for me to my satisfaction).

 

[FrogReaver]

I have something I hope will be constructive to add.

Maybe we should analyze a part of RPG's that should be less controversial and have less moving parts - Character Building.
I'm going to start with 5e D&D as an example.

Basics:
Choose a Race
Choose a Class (and any sub-choices under class)
Choose a Background
Assign Stats

The questions:
1. Does adding more Race or Class options increase player agency? Does subtracting Race or Class options decrease player agency?
2. If table practice is rolling for Stats in Order is that lower player agency than rolling and choosing where to assign?
3. Would player agency be lowered if the option of Background was entirely removed?
4. Does it matter for player agency if the players and GM's arrive at these decisions together or if the DM arrives at these changes himself?

In general I don't see any impact on player agency here. Exception: if absolutely every character creation option was simultaneously taken away (example: roll and be assigned a pregren character based on your roll).

I'm curious what others will say.

Another important question to consider - Compare the player agency in D&D character creation to the player agency in character creations for games where choices made in character creation tend to have a greater impact on the direction of play than they do in D&D.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

So I think I should preamble here by noting that I'm very much not trying to take a side in the gaming culture war going on in this thread, although, by virtue of being someone who likes pbta games, I suppose I can't avoid being assigned one by default. I nevertheless wish to stress that I am not trying to convince you of the superiority of any particular approach, or the unimpeachable correctness of any particular definition of the term "agency."

With that out of the way, the opinion you're expressing here is one that I think is interesting to discuss, because I think it does illuminate some of the differences between different types of agency, but from the DM side.

In my experience, pbta (the only narrativist system I have personal experience of) has the effect of simultaneously restricting and expanding DM agency. Notably, while the way I frame and narrate the game is restricted in some ways, my ability to directly mess with the PCs and make their lives difficult is vastly increased!

Take the example of a PC using the Hack And Slash move to attack a monster in Dungeon World. On a failed roll, I, the DM, have been handed a "golden opportunity" to freely apply a "hard move." That could just mean that the PC takes 1d6 points of damage from the monsters counter attack, but it can also mean more or less anything I want. For instance, I could decide that the monster's thrashing has destabilized these old ruins, and the PC is trapped under a collapsing wall!

Now, if I just decided that happened in Dnd, that would be a pretty significant faux pas! If there was a hazard there, the PCs should have a way to find out about it before hand and take precautions. Springing something i just made up on the PCs like that would prevent them from strategizing about the use of their resources, which is a big part of the game aspect of Dnd. But in Dungeon World? That's not only perfectly OK, it's expected! (But note that I could only do it because of a failed roll)

Naturally that's not going to be a great approach if you are into the resource management aspect of RPGs, but it's also not the DM being completely subservient to the players.

I would just point out that resource management can be a CRITICAL part of narrativist play. I agree that Dungeon World uses resources more as a leverage for the GM to frame a problem, or to act as the mechanism for a move (IE take something away). So, I mostly agree that in DW there isn't a very explicit nailed-down resource game. Torchbearer OTOH has a resource game from heck! If you don't begin starving to death and stumbling blindly without a light source, you're a lucky adventurer! (well, a skillful player). Blades in the Dark has a pretty robust resource game as well, though with a pretty different mode of operation than TB2 has.

I like your description of DW play though, thx.

 

[Maxperson]

I'm comparing the type of agency where I learn from the GM what is happening next to the type of agency where I am able to meaningfully impact the content of the shared fiction.

To me, those look like comparisons of degree.

It isn't a comparison of degree. They are just different preferences regarding the type of agency. I know this because I can meaningfully impact the content of the shared fiction in the first type of agency, just in a different manner than the one you prefer.

 

[Aldarc]

Its oppressive to the DM, from the perspective of mainstream D&D play, and that of previous non-4e (with exclusively player-authored quests) editions. A lot of people seem to like this, and that's great. But it does restrict the DMs choices greatly in comparison, and is not a game style I have any interest in.

This claim feels ridiculous. It's like a monarch bemoaning their oppression under a constitional monarchy that in any way checks their absolute power. Forgive me as I play the world's smallest violin for the poor oppressed monarch and DM who suddenly find their authority bound by rules (of law).

 

[Micah Sweet]

This claim feels ridiculous. It's like a monarch bemoaning their oppression under a constitional monarchy that in any way checks their absolute power. Forgive me as I play the world's smallest violin for the poor oppressed monarch and DM who suddenly find their authority bound by rules (of law).

It feels ridiculous to you, because you have different preferences. Many others would and do prefer a game where the rules don't constrain the GM to the extent they do in the narrative games you play. I find your comment just as insulting as you may have found any comment I've ever made on this forum about narrative-based games.

 

[Aldarc]

It feels ridiculous to you, because you have different preferences. Many others would and do prefer a game where the rules don't constrain the GM to the extent they do in the narrative games you play.

Well I do have different preferences, but it's your specific use of that hyperbolic language that I find absurd and not the actual play preferences themselves, which I have repeatedly validated and given the red carpet treatment in this thread. I also don't go around using hyperbolic language of feeling "oppressed" just because a game may expect the GM to play by game principles or a gameplay loop.