D&D General What is player agency to you?

[pemerton]

As your post did not say: Do you support this or not?

As I posted upthread,

The whole notion of "hooks", "clues" etc has no work to do in the play of Burning Wheel or Dungeon World.

It can have work to do in Torchbearer, which is why - as I've mentioned several times - that game is an intermediate case.

In Torchbearer, GM prep (of a dungeon or similar) can be part of play, but that prep is "locked in".

Players can always seek to find clues using the appropriate rules - eg Circles, using Scholar to undertake research during town phase, etc.

So if a DM tells a player they must play their character one set way.....that is wrong, right?

So....why is it not wrong for a player to do this for the DM? Why does the player get to say "this NPC must be this way and you must obey me DM!"

I don't know of RPGs where the player just gets to say that. But putting aside technical details, the reason for the difference is the different roles of the participants. The players are playing their PCs as the centre of the action. The GM's job is to respond to that. The relationship of the GM to NPCs is completely different from that of the players to their PCs.

 

[Mort]

Everyone dances around this point and is vague.

If the player suggests anything and the DM has no veto, then it's forcing the DM to do something...even if the DM is a "fan of the players" and just agrees to do so "right away player whatever you say".

It's exactly like a DM saying "your character must get mad and chase after the gnome", but the player then saying "no, my character will just let it go". No player would want to "ok, my character chases the gnome and is mad because the DM told me to".

Except there is nothing in D&D that allows players to do anything like this.

Background features allow the player a bit of say in some VERY limited and specific circumstances. Nothing like what you are suggesting.

And if the player can't suggest, change, alter or create anything....then what exactly are they doing? Just decorations?

Even the most generous interpretation only allows some very specific limited things. Like requiring a meeting be honored. But the DM sets just about all the parameters - even there.

Even a "good" player might "suggest" a ton of stuff the DM does not want in the world. So, does the DM just roll over to the players automatically or can they say "no" or "well, not exactly like you said".

And IF they can....they CAN do it EVERY time a player suggested something. Right?

Where are you getting this from? Specifics please. There is no mechanism in D&D 5e (or 3e or 4e) for the player to force the DM to do anything like this. Again 5e backgrounds offer some VERY specific ways for a player to try a force, to but they are nothing like this at all.

And if the DM can't say "no"...what is t try a he control for the exploitive players or worse? When a player just says "oh...snicker, snicker, the temple of Good is selling healing potions half of today". Does the DM just roll over and say "Wow, cool idea...your wish is so in the game player." ?

Again, there is no player forces DM to give them exactly what they want button in 5e. It's just not a thing.

You started this thread asking for input on why players say you infringe on their agency.

I'd say that's been answered - you've stated that if a player does something you don't like - you will literally come up with a reason to take over their character and have the PC act how you want them to - or otherwise in a way that will embarrass them.

That is 100% unambiguous agency infringing behavior! Even the sides that can barely come to an agreement on what agency is aren't in dispute here!

 

[hawkeyefan]

Everyone dances around this point and is vague.

If the player suggests anything and the DM has no veto, then it's forcing the DM to do something...even if the DM is a "fan of the players" and just agrees to do so "right away player whatever you say".

It's exactly like a DM saying "your character must get mad and chase after the gnome", but the player then saying "no, my character will just let it go". No player would want to "ok, my character chases the gnome and is mad because the DM told me to".

And if the player can't suggest, change, alter or create anything....then what exactly are they doing? Just decorations?

Even a "good" player might "suggest" a ton of stuff the DM does not want in the world. So, does the DM just roll over to the players automatically or can they say "no" or "well, not exactly like you said".

And IF they can....they CAN do it EVERY time a player suggested something. Right?

And if the DM can't say "no"...what is the control for the exploitive players or worse? When a player just says "oh...snicker, snicker, the temple of Good is selling healing potions half of today". Does the DM just roll over and say "Wow, cool idea...your wish is so in the game player." ?

Setting aside any kind of rule zero or “the DM is the ultimate authority” or power tapestries… the rules are binding to the participants.

If a player rolls an 18, their character hits the orc and they get to deal damage. If the character has it memorized and has a 3rd level spell slot available, they may cast fireball. If they have the Sentinel feat, they can make an attack of opportunity on an opponent trying to leave their threatened area and if they hit, stop that opponent’s movement.

The DM doesn’t block these abilities unless there is some relevant reason to do so. Absent that, they honor the rules of the game.

No rules allow players to demand anything at any time and oblige the DM to provide it. It’s a ridiculous concern.

We’ve been using the Position of Privilege background feature of the Noble background as an example. This allows a Noble PC to obtain an audience with a local noble. As with the other abilities, the DM should only deny this ability if they have a truly compelling reason.

Other games go beyond this and allow players even more input, but it’s always limited by the rules, as is the GM response in such games. There’s constraint on both sides, both player and GM; the GM is not above the rules in those games and is obliged to honor them just as the players are. The players are limited in what they can do and when.

You’re clearly not familiar with such games, so maybe just stick to D&D and the matter of background features and how limited they are… that should be a sufficient example.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

And if the DM can't say "no"...what is the control for the exploitive players or worse? When a player just says "oh...snicker, snicker, the temple of Good is selling healing potions half of today". Does the DM just roll over and say "Wow, cool idea...your wish is so in the game player." ?

No.

You have an adult conversation and work toward an agreement. If any participant absolutely refuses to accept anything but the one thing they desire, then that person is clearly not participating in good faith, and should be asked to change their behavior or leave.

It's exactly the same as what you would do if you were:

• Asking your significant other where they would like to go out to eat
• Offering to invite someone over for dinner, and discussing what they would like to eat and what you're willing to cook
• Having a conversation with friends and discussing whatever topics the group finds interesting
• Getting into a serious (not heated, just sincere) debate with a colleague on a work-relevant topic
• Preparing a plan for a group assignment (e.g., you're on a team of coders drafting a plan of action for the team supervisor)
• Offering volunteer labor to a third party, where you have limits on what you can contribute but wish to contribute as much as you can
• Arranging a social gathering for coworkers, looking for an appropriate time and venue
• Etc.

Now, sometimes, there are such things as bright lines here--but if they exist, decorum and respect definitely require that you mention them first, just as you should mention if you're lactose intolerant or practice Orthodox Judaism or have a peanut allergy before you dine at a friend's house. Likewise, if you know one of your coworkers has a terrible fear of heights, it would be a very serious error to pick a venue located on a high-rise balcony or the like. In the context of a TTRPG, one common example of a bright "no" line would be sexual assault.

Outside of that sort of thing though, where there are ethical, medical, or personal reasons why someone would be genuinely unwilling to accept something, it is inherent to the very idea of mutually-respectful communication that the participants be willing to negotiate. That emphatically does not mean that anyone must always surrender, indeed, that would be the definition of disrespectful communication, because that means at least one person is entitled to always get their way!

No one has a veto (outside the aforementioned ethical/medical/personal/etc. exceptions.) Nobody. Not the players, not the GM, nobody. That means everyone is expected to be lenient and cooperative. Everyone is expected to have give and take. Everyone is expected to be willing to budge on some things so they can obtain other things they would like to get.

And yes, this does, in fact, actually work. I find that it works quite a bit better than many other approaches, mostly because, unlike those other approaches, it doesn't involve secrecy and trying to divine what others know, or trying to hide from them things that would upset them, or trying to pretend that something is a certain way when it is in fact not at all that way. Honest, respectful communication is, in fact, one of the most important things one can pursue in any human relationship, which includes the people you game with.

If you want "limits" on anyone--the limits are the rules of the game. That's why making good rules is important, because they're the backbone of the experience. That's why it's actually pretty unwise to just randomly knock down or ignore the rules of Dungeon World if it strikes your fancy; those rules are very intentional, and are extremely important for producing an enjoyable experience rather than a terrible one (assuming you want the kind of experience it offers, of course). That's why it matters so much that the rules tell the GM that, when they answer Discern Realities questions, they must be honest. And, likewise, that's why it matters so much that the players must in fact "do it to do it," they have to actually produce the fiction that is the doing of the thing, whatever thing it might be (attacking an opponent in melee, persevering in the face of danger, closely examining a person/place/object, etc.)

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

I understand now. First let me say I don't believe that play in 'narrative/story now/etc' games is anything like players succeed all the time. That said, I disagree with the connection you are drawing between my words and with what (I agree) is a truly frustrating insult - but I really don't think it will be constructive to dig into who is right over this disagreement - I just don't think either of us will convince the other. Instead I want to offer this - if the issue is just the words I used to describe the concept then I'll happily change words. But I'm not sure what I'm to do if it's not the words to describe the concept but the concept itself and that's what I fear is actually causing that connection for you. If so, I think the only way forward may be this: Will you provide me some extra grace so that I can express what I think is an important concept without causing offense to you?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

But to me that's not exploring the really interesting case: suppose we are talking about a case where a player does have agency. How does changing the chances for success change his agency? I think everything I asked before is still applicable in this space and it's one i'd love to hear your thoughts on.

I think the answer is basically the one @Manbearcat gave. Its complex. What are the expectations of the game? How does success/not-success relate to the agenda? Are there quantifiable win/loss cons? So, can I formulate something like a cost/benefit analysis? Is that meaningful in the context of the game in question? What impact will failure or success have on the character itself? Like in BW a player might want, or even be required to (if I understand correctly) rewrite a belief in some situations, and that might hinge of whether they pulled something off or not.

I mean, as a gross generalization, low cost/benefit choices can be unappealing enough, especially if juxtaposed with other lower stakes reliable options, as to be effectively a non-choice. OTOH maybe you aren't motivated so much by costs vs benefits and you just want to take a big fat gamble?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I never said that your style of gaming is group improv, first of all.

The captioned above, however, combined with the specific guidelines and rules that the GM is required to follow to play in the spirit of the game really seems to me like it would benefit from being called a different sort of game. It really isn't a value judgment.

So, what is Dungeon World then? It clearly seems to be a game, it has rules. It has participants who carry out a set of steps defined in those rules. Its clearly a pastime. It also clearly involves role play, in a way very similar to other RPGs (IE each person taking on the role of a specific character and one taking on the role of Game Master). I'm hard-pressed to come up with any name for this except TTRPG... We've already come up with a name for this type of game, Narrativist RPG. I'm perfectly happy with that.

 

[bloodtide]

Even the most generous interpretation only allows some very specific limited things. Like requiring a meeting be honored. But the DM sets just about all the parameters - even there.

Ok, but does this not cut into the all powerful Player Agency?

If we "must" use the noble bit as you are stuck on it:

The PCs wander into some location in the game. The one Player says "I use my noble feature". So the DM Must alter game reality and say "yes, player there is a noble for you to meet with. All hail the rules".

But ok...lets say there was a noble. Well the feature is just "you get a meeting". So if the DM makes an unfriendly noble, won't the player just whine and complain that the DM is not giving the Player Agency?

Where are you getting this from? Specifics please. There is no mechanism in D&D 5e (or 3e or 4e) for the player to force the DM to do anything like this. Again 5e backgrounds offer some VERY specific ways for a player to try a force, to but they are nothing like this at all.

I know I have said this before....and guess will say many more times: I'm not talking about a rule X on page Y of game Z. Ok...fine some games exist where everyone read and follows "the rules" on the page. Look that is great. And, ok....done.....moving on.

So now in a generic RPG WITH NO RULES WHATSOEVER FOR "PLAYER AGENCY", a Player will STILL demand Player Agency. D&D 5E has NO "other game player agency rules" AT ALL. And YET, a player in a 5E game will whine and complain ABOUT having Player Agency....even though they are playing a game with NO "narrative/storytelling like rules".

You started this thread asking for input on why players say you infringe on their agency.

I'd say that's been answered - you've stated that if a player does something you don't like - you will literally come up with a reason to take over their character and have the PC act how you want them to - or otherwise in a way that will embarrass them.

That is 100% unambiguous agency infringing behavior! Even the sides that can barely come to an agreement on what agency is aren't in dispute here!

Though....oddly...ghost butt boy is not one complaining about "agency".

Outside of that sort of thing though, where there are ethical, medical, or personal reasons why someone would be genuinely unwilling to accept something, it is inherent to the very idea of mutually-respectful communication that the participants be willing to negotiate. That emphatically does not mean that anyone must always surrender, indeed, that would be the definition of disrespectful communication, because that means at least one person is entitled to always get their way!

I do love how you say there no "line or limits"....and then say there "are". But, of course only ones YOU agree with. And sure, if your with a group of people that think exactly like you in nearly every way.......it's great. You think X, they all think X and everyone is happy.

But what happens when your personal "approved list" does not match with someone else's?

And it only get worse when one side is completely unreasonable....and this is very common.

No one has a veto (outside the aforementioned ethical/medical/personal/etc. exceptions.) Nobody. Not the players, not the GM, nobody. That means everyone is expected to be lenient and cooperative. Everyone is expected to have give and take. Everyone is expected to be willing to budge on some things so they can obtain other things they would like to get.

Right, "no one" has a veto......EXCEPT you with your PERFECT list. So you can sit back and get EVERYTHING you want.....as it's on YOUR list. But what about everyone else? Why don't they get a say? Why is YOUR list the only ONE WAY?

And yes, this does, in fact, actually work. I find that it works quite a bit better than many other approaches, mostly because, unlike those other approaches, it doesn't involve secrecy and trying to divine what others know, or trying to hide from them things that would upset them, or trying to pretend that something is a certain way when it is in fact not at all that way. Honest, respectful communication is, in fact, one of the most important things one can pursue in any human relationship, which includes the people you game with.

Well, sure it works great if you have a group of people that all think nearly the exact same thing. But it will only work for that small group of people.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This point is probably more semantics but most of these discussions seem to boil down to that - at least in part. I think there's a difference between 'creating the world' and 'driving play'. The D&D DM still creates the world in this particular subset of play. Players choose where to go and what to do in that world. But as long as the world is large and accessible enough then that means the players can drive play toward just about anything in a general sense.

I think the point that I would make here is that the 'where to go' and the 'anything' are situation/setting/location based in trad play, and thus ORIGINATE with the GM. You can go to Dyvvers or Greyhawk, you can jump on the slaver ship (A1) or head off into the Bright Desert and explore a dungeon, etc.

Primarily I would point out that the 'drives' here are EXTERNAL to the PCs, they aren't present on the character sheet (even notionally in terms of informal RP characteristics that might be written in some notes perhaps). Now, players may express SOME internal motivations, and at times which direction (Dyvvers or Greyhawk) you go in might be decided based on something the player asserts about their character. Maybe they even take a left turn and go to High Hold instead.

Now specifics might be a different story. Players don't get carte blanche to drive play toward very specific elements that they come up with - though most dm's will work with them to get something in the ballpark added to the fiction for them to interact with. This later type of 'driving play' seems to be more of what you have in mind, whereas the former is what I have in mind.

Right, I think you are dead on there. This is why it is quite difficult to run something like, say, a Low Myth D&D game. Its POSSIBLE at some level, but the system's resolution mechanisms, the things it names on the character sheet, how it handles structuring play, etc. is not really geared for that and has to be worked out. I suspect that's the sort of thing that @pemerton notes when he says AD&D was 'klunky' or somesuch. Even if you play a higher myth narrativist form with it, a bunch of stuff, like the incentive structures, are going to need to be adapted heavily. I even found a bit of this to be true with 4e, though its pretty OK out of the box.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

*Note I'd say playing this way is definitely a minority. IME it seems most D&D players respond better to a menu of choices and so most of the time a menu of choices is what is provided - but even if it is, most DM's aren't going to force one of the choices from that menu if the players want something not on the menu (obviously in a high DM prep game there's some external consideration given by players toward what's already been prepped - but ultimately they still have the choice of doing things that lead places the DM hasn't prepped for).

Maybe, I mean, the fact that D&D seems to have substantially higher sales than other RPGs and generally plays as a trad game out of the box, particularly with modules and such, is, IMHO a decent piece of evidence.

I'm far less sure, particularly anymore, about it being inherently easier to play trad. Or that players mostly just want an easy list of menu items to poke. For instance DW doesn't actually demand a huge amount more than D&D does. You create a PC, which is actually a bit less work than making a 5e PC, ballpark similar lets say. You create 2-3 bonds, which is about the most in-depth part, but no harder than 5e BIFTS.

From there on its just describe what your PC does, answer a GM question now and then, and the game 'just happens'. The GM is going to look at your alignment, bonds, etc. and probably draw from that to present situations, but in terms of how you need to react to them, there's nothing special going on there. If you have a bond "protect the halfling at all costs", well, you can decide because of that you leap in and defend him from the goblin, or maybe your self-preservation instinct is stronger and you let him die. Guess we're done with that bond...