D&D General What is player agency to you?

[AbdulAlhazred]

Define "typical". Typical D&D modules aren't character centric, although some attempt to be. If it's not typical in D&D in my experience it's largely because a lot of people don't want a player-centric game. Perhaps a better term would be character goal centric game? A lot of people just want to explore a world or be given a limited set of options on a linear path. A fair number DM's also just aren't very good at improvisational game developments.

I think 'module play' is what is generally on offer, or play that is modeled on similar paradigms where the content was authored by the GM. I cannot say, nor can anyone probably, what percentages of people want specifically which sorts of play. Modules are simple and convenient and its practically impossible to write a 'module' for something like Dungeon World, and would defeat at least part of the point. Maybe more people DO want character-centric games, how would we know? I mean, a lot of people spend a good bit of time on their characters! Clearly there's been enough dissatisfaction with basic trad play to drive the development of RPGs forward. Heck, I was around in the days when the original WW Vampire game came out and practically cleaned house with D&D. It wasn't narrativist, but it sure did promise something beyond setting-centered module play. So, I don't know what 'a lot of people' want, but I run games that people DO want to play, and I can find a group to run DW or Agon or Ironsworn or whatever for any old time.

You could be right about 'a fair number of DM's' too, though again I hesitate to judge. One of the things I rather like about Dungeon World/Apocalypse World (and I think BitD is similar) is I don't really have to improvise anything too amazing. Like, a bar brawl in Dungeon World is pretty kick-ass, and I sure don't need to do much to depict some tables, chairs, a bar, fireplace, hot pokers, a balcony, a chandelier, and a stairway with a bannister you can slide down. Heck, its about as original as the wheel, but it will do! That and some location-appropriate toughs and maybe a few bar girls (OK, sorry ladies, some of them might be boys). I mean, considering I made my original dungeon by simply taking the stack of geomorphs out of my Holme's Basic box and labeling them 'level 1', 'level 2', etc. and putting a number in each room, yeah, well, high originality prep is maybe a tad overrated? Just say stuff, it works!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

IMO, there is nothing worse than the player who wants the game to be about "who" they are rather than "what they do".

Why? That's GOLD to me! I mean, it depends a bit, are they wanting to just SHOW OFF who they are? Or are they trying to FIND OUT who they are? The former could be amusing, the later is really where its at, the heart of RP.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

While I get what you're saying, I'd much rather believe in the fairness of the GM than to abandon a style I prefer because it technically allows unfairness.

I mean, I'm not saying you should. What I am saying is that this is a real problem that actually happens at real tables. Sometimes, ones I myself have been at. (This is an area where my overall shyness and chary reception of strangers is almost borderline useful. Acts as a weak filter. Imperfect, but what isn't?)

Seems to me that there remains more useful discussion to be had of it, rather than just, "Stop telling me not to have fun!"

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Why? That's GOLD to me! I mean, it depends a bit, are they wanting to just SHOW OFF who they are? Or are they trying to FIND OUT who they are? The former could be amusing, the later is really where its at, the heart of RP.

Fully agreed. I genuinely don't understand your point here @Raiztt. Games that factor in who a character have been, without fail, the most interesting and engaging TTRPG experiences I've ever had--on both sides of the screen (though I admit, on the GM side, I don't really have many points of comparison!)

 

[FrogReaver]

So, firstly, "some" will say anything. I don't think it's particularly fair to present that so baldly without nuance. It's pretty close to, "Players just want to win, and if you don't just let them win, they'll become petulant." Which isn't ideal. I am certain that's not what you're going for here, but it's too easy for it to fall into that.

It seems like something from my post caused you offense. I'm sorry that I have no idea what it could possibly be.

If the GM never uses success chances as a way to soft-ban/soft-block player choices, then no. If they do at any point do that, then yes.

Skipping through all the reasoning because I agree with your conclusion!

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It seems like something from my post caused you offense. I'm sorry that I have no idea what it could possibly be.

I had endeavored to be more gracious about it (at least, moreso than my original response), but yeah, this part did get my back up: "I think some will say players that have success more often weighted in their favor have greater control over the narrative and thus greater agency." Like I said, it comes across as perilously close to "just let the players succeed all the time," which is a pervasive and very frustrating insult pointed at "narrative"/"storytelling"/etc. games. It's happened in this thread, and in (AFAIK) every previous thread where anything related to "narrative"/"storytelling"/etc. has come up.

E.g., when I tell folks that my players and I aren't interested in permitting random, permanent, irrevocable* character deaths, a good half of the time, the response is some flavor of, "Oh, so everyone just always succeeds at everything forever and never ever works for anything? Wow, that sounds like absolute garbage, no thanks!" Which is pretty sad, honestly. It's quite rare for someone who thinks death is the only meaningful consequence (a position I thoroughly reject) to approach it as a way to learn something new, instead treating it as something to mock and/or ward off with signs-against-evil.

*Random: the result of crap luck or unforeseeable stuff, as opposed to deaths resulting from something the player actually has responsibility for. Permanent: Dead and staying that way, rather than something that will get reversed on its own. Irrevocable: whether in practice or in absolute, the players can't do anything to bring the dead character back. Only when all three apply is there a problem. If it's non-random, it can be permanent and/or irrevocable, etc.

 

[mamba]

this part did get my back up: "I think some will say players that have success more often weighted in their favor have greater control over the narrative and thus greater agency." Like I said, it comes across as perilously close to "just let the players succeed all the time," which is a pervasive and very frustrating insult pointed at "narrative"/"storytelling"/etc. games

Then maybe your side should not be arguing that the player not sometimes being denied something is a sign of increased agency, because that is just the other side of the same coin...

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Then maybe your side should not be arguing that the player not sometimes being denied something is a sign of increased agency, because that is just the other side of the same coin...

I have not argued that. Ever.

Point out to me where I have done so. I'll wait.

 

[mamba]

I have not argued that. Ever.

Point out to me where I have done so. I'll wait.

I said 'your side', not 'you'. I am not really keeping track of who said what exactly over 100+ pages

 

[pemerton]

Then maybe your side should not be arguing that the player not sometimes being denied something is a sign of increased agency, because that is just the other side of the same coin...

The difference between the dice decide and another participant decides is vast. It is the premise of all gambling. It is the premise of the D&D combat system, which has no changed in its core mechanics for nearly 50 years.