D&D General What is player agency to you?

[EzekielRaiden]

I am a huge fan of 4E D&D, but I have to admit that the method of play here is something I am unaware of. I am assuming this was discussed in the DMG? I'm wondering if this attitude is part of the reason people did not like that edition.

(Please note: no edition warring here, I'm not saying anything bad about any edition, nor am I trying to pick a fight. I just think this play style is controversial and wonder if it's one of the reasons for the game's controversy. I know the other reasons, but hadn't heard about this).

Unlikely. 4e is sort of the reverse of 5e on this front. It supports and discusses the tools, but doesn't explicitly say "do X." Conversely, at least IMO, 5e says things that are (wishy-washy) in that direction, but does nothing to support it and only "discusses" tools by saying something equivalent to "well, you could do X, or you could not do X. Figure it out!"

But this gets into my complaints about 5e's DMG being terrible at guidance, which might count as edition warring, so I will say no more.

 

[soviet]

I am a huge fan of 4E D&D, but I have to admit that the method of play here is something I am unaware of. I am assuming this was discussed in the DMG? I'm wondering if this attitude is part of the reason people did not like that edition.

(Please note: no edition warring here, I'm not saying anything bad about any edition, nor am I trying to pick a fight. I just think this play style is controversial and wonder if it's one of the reasons for the game's controversy. I know the other reasons, but hadn't heard about this).

No.

4e's rules are clear and naturally give players a lot of interesting choices without a need for a GM override, which can act as a decent foundation for 'vanilla' narrativist style play. Some of the GM advice, and the skill challenges mechanism, also support this kind of play. But it's pretty weak sauce really, you can drift things that way if you know how to from other experiences but it's definitely not built into the game as it stands. You wouldn't play narr by accident from it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

This has nothing to do with the roles of the different people at the table (player vs DM). If Chuck takes actions the rest of the group disagrees with, other members of the group are free to counter Chuck's actions. D&D is a group game, in most cases people play along with what the group wants for sake of cohesion.

And yet people have repeatedly insisted that if players are participating in the driving of the action, they are:

• Instantly winning everything forever
• Giving themselves massive material advantages without any justification
• Retconning or rewriting or changing the world

Or some other equally hysterical claim. And this is then used to argue that it is not only good but critically necessary to deny players any ability to drive the fiction, otherwise no game is present. And if players don't like that, they can vote with their feet, as noted.

if the GM's role is so irrelevant, why do people keep harping on it?

 

[soviet]

According to some, player agency is simultaneously high in D&D and also something to be fought at all costs in D&D.

 

[bloodtide]

It is almost as if you encountered your mirror universe twin! lol.

Not even close to my "twin".

Honestly though, I doubt she'd last in ANY game for long. There certainly ARE people who are just looking to be a pain, rare though it is to run into one. I remember a guy that played in our game once who was utterly obsessed with England and could only eat what he thought was English food and speak with a proper accent and etc. Yeah, he pretty much crashed and burned, but not before we discovered he actually believed that there is such a food as an 'English Muffin' in England (and that it is exactly like what we call by that name in the US). Sigh.

I guess she was fine with undean animals and did not count things like owlbears or hell hounds as animals. Still.....

And....ahem....we knew there was a boy...Thomas...who could not sell his muffins in England. So he came to America to sell his muffins.

 

[Oofta]

According to some, player agency is simultaneously high in D&D and also something to be fought at all costs in D&D.

Or, as someone who thinks agency is (or at least can be) high in D&D, I have no issues with different roles in the game. Every game has restrictions and limits on what the people playing can do.

Different games just draw different lines.

 

[hawkeyefan]

@hawkeyefan said...


@Oofta is saying they are the same thing, and hence, if one is real the other is real because they are identical. It is in that way that he is disagreeing with/rebuking the other poster.

Perhaps that is what he meant, but what he said was:

We're playing a game of make believe. Agency in the game is limited what we can do as players in the game.

I suppose this was meant to be "Agency in the game is limited to what we can do as characters"?

But then it becomes untrue.

players can drive the fiction perfectly well without the ability to directly affect how the fiction exists as players (not characters)

How? Do you have an example of this you can share? It seems paradoxical to me for "players to drive the fiction without the ability to directly affect how the fiction exists". I don't even know what that means.

How that agency is expressed is a different issue, I simply don't believe that D&D is inherently a low (player) agency game.

Okay. What would you suggest is a low agency game?

Or, as someone who thinks agency is (or at least can be) high in D&D, I have no issues with different roles in the game. Every game has restrictions and limits on what the people playing can do.

Different games just draw different lines.

Yes. This is really all anyone is saying. It's just that some folks are saying that they draw different lines in regard to agency.

 

[bloodtide]

And yet people have repeatedly insisted that if players are participating in the driving of the action, they are:

• Instantly winning everything forever
• Giving themselves massive material advantages without any justification
• Retconning or rewriting or changing the world

Or some other equally hysterical claim. And this is then used to argue that it is not only good but critically necessary to deny players any ability to drive the fiction, otherwise no game is present.

Though I say:

*Sure, yes, there are SOME players who are on the same Wavelength as the GM and Agree with the GM on nearly everything in a major sense. This type of player will simply do not only the "right non-game disruptive thing" but also do only nearly exactly what the GM agrees with them doing. When everyone is in agreement, everyone thinks and does the same thing and just gives everyone else a high five.

And there are SOME players that are basically good people. So they won't do anything to disrupt or ruin a game....even if they get a "chance" to do so.

BUT....then there is everyone else. All the neutral and bad players. Most neutral folks will "be good" mostly, and most of the time.....but they are more then willing to do bad and evil things if given a chance. And, of course, the bad players will do such things as disrupt the game because they ARE bad players.

So, it's not "all" of the players "all" of the time.

 

[Oofta]

Perhaps that is what he meant, but what he said was:



I suppose this was meant to be "Agency in the game is limited to what we can do as characters"?

But then it becomes untrue.



How? Do you have an example of this you can share? It seems paradoxical to me for "players to drive the fiction without the ability to directly affect how the fiction exists". I don't even know what that means.



Okay. What would you suggest is a low agency game?



Yes. This is really all anyone is saying. It's just that some folks are saying that they draw different lines in regard to agency.

No, you just redefine agency to mean something I disagree with.

 

[hawkeyefan]

No, you just redefine agency to mean something I disagree with.

Okay. What do you think it is?

And what would be an example of a low agency game?