D&D General What is player agency to you?

[FrogReaver]

I disagree with the very concept of "Lack of agency comes from not implementing this specific style of play."

@Pedantic talked some about magic circles earlier.

I think there’s a difference in wanting agency over some of the boundaries of the magic circle and agency within the magic circle.

I think part but not all of increased agency for them is agency over some of the magic circle boundaries. They want high level player control over what are to be the key dramas seen throughout play - then let the dice, dm framing and PC moves fill in the nitty gritty details as play occurs.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You misunderstand me or are avoiding the point. It's hard to say.

I'm saying that any definition of player agency that does not include the full range of player agency in all TTRPGs is a poo poo definition. If that is your definition of player agency, then yes I am saying that you have and are using a poo poo definition of player agency that reeks of OneTrueWayism regardless of whether you recognize that stench for what it is or not. It reminds me of all the people in this forum past and present who told me that some of the tabletop roleplaying games that I enjoyed weren't "true roleplaying games," except here I am being told that my player agency in these games that is outside of your definition isn't actually player agency. Those sorts of arguments can burn in Hades. I have no patience for those sort of people then, and I have even less patience for those sort of people now.


You honsetly don't see how saying the full range of player agency that exists in other games doesn't constitute as agency would be insulting, putting down, or limiting any particular game? So if I provide a definition of player agency that excluded your games and gaming preferences, you would not be insulted by that?

For the record: I am NOT doing that with the definition that I have been advocating. My broader definition of player agency is intentionally about establishing a definition that creates a bigger tent that accurately includes the range of player agency in as many tabletop roleplaying games as possible.


Unlike others? Unlike others? What about you and what you are doing here above? Don't finger point at others with "whataboutism" because we are talking about what you are saying and arguing here with your definition. Your definition of player agency does not take into account how player agency operates in other table roleplaying games. You may not care for those other games, but that doesn't mean that the only legitimate definition of player agency exists within the more restricted frame of reference of your personal play preferences.

And for the record, @pemerton has rebuked your characterization of this argument numerous times, as he has also discussed how D&D can also be played with higher agency, such as in his 4e D&D games. He is not saying that only narrativist games can have player agency. So stop repeating this strawman.

@pemerton played 4e in an intentionally more narrative way than most others (as they have other not assumed narrative games, such as classic Traveler), so I'm not sure that really a strawman.

 

[Oofta]

@Pedantic talked some about magic circles earlier.

I think there’s a difference in wanting agency over some of the boundaries of the magic circle and agency within the magic circle.

I think part but not all of increased agency for them is agency over some of the magic circle boundaries. They want high level player control over what are to be the key dramas seen throughout play - then let the dice and dm framing fill in the nitty gritty details as play occurs.

Which is fine. It's not that I don't understand, it's I just disagree that it makes a difference to the amount of agency someone has. It's just another tool, another option, a different way of achieving goals.

Any definition of agency that requires a specific rule option is just a circular argument to me. Agency is increased by this option therefore this option increases agency.

 

[Micah Sweet]

From amongst the choices given, which are without reference to any trait, drive, or need of the character. They choose which area of the world to explore, and that is fundamentally the impetus, to 'fill in the map' in some fashion.

It doesn't contain the mechanisms and structure which support that kind of play, trust me. I mean, what you are saying is not that controversial, we've talked about vanilla narrativism. Yes, you can do it, but its a big mismatch with D&D the game. If you want to play that way, you really should play, say, Dungeon World, because it will be 100x easier to pull off.

I want to allow players to pursue goals for their characters that are important to those PCs personally, in the form of telling me about those goals in session 0 so I can incorporate the ability to pursue them into my world before the campaign begins. That absolutely does not mean that I should be playing PBtA.

 

[FrogReaver]

I want to allow players to pursue goals for their characters that are important to those PCs personally, in the form of telling me about those goals in session 0 so I can incorporate the ability to pursue them into my world before the campaign begins. That absolutely does not mean that I should be playing PBtA.

Part of the difference is that D&D doesn’t offer any mechanisms to keep play centered around those goals - and most d&d games keep player goals less central than they would be in a PbtA game. It’s not outright impossible in d&d, it’s just unlikely. Additionally when the d&d dm puts the players goal at risk via scene framing it can feel like that’s happening due to dm fiat and depending on the nature of the fictional framing can be about as railroady as imaginable - one of the reasons for the murder hobo meme’s existence - because in light of having their background and NPC connections used against them, players focused on adventuring tend to do better at adventuring if their background NPC connects aren’t being used against them.

 

[Oofta]

Part of the difference is that D&D doesn’t offer any mechanisms to keep play centered around those goals - and most d&d games keep player goals less central than they would be in a PbtA game. It’s not outright impossible in d&d, it’s just unlikely. Additionally when the d&d dm puts the players goal at risk via scene framing it can feel like that’s happening due to dm fiat and depending on the nature of the fictional framing can be about as railroady as imaginable - one of the reasons for the murder hobo meme’s existence - because in light of having their background and NPC connections used against them, players focused on adventuring tend to do better at adventuring if their background NPC connects aren’t being used against them.

I can only speak for myself when I say that I don't need, heck I don't even want, the game to make my personal goals central to play. It's not that I don't give my PC goals, personality and background, I do. It's great when and if the DM incorporates those into play.

But it is a different focus, I'd rather explore and discover external things. My own goals and aspirations for my PC can then change, grow and inform how and why I make the decisions I do.

But if character focus is what makes a game work for you, great. I just don't think it's inherently better.

 

[FrogReaver]

Which is fine. It's not that I don't understand, it's I just disagree that it makes a difference to the amount of agency someone has. It's just another tool, another option, a different way of achieving goals.

Any definition of agency that requires a specific rule option is just a circular argument to me. Agency is increased by this option therefore this option increases agency.

I feel you.

IMO. A good example from d&d - you show up as session 0 to find wizards are banned but you really wanted to play a wizard. Or worse you show up and only fighters or rogues are allowed but you wanted to play anything else.

Maybe I’m wrong but I bet most d&d players would feel as if their agency was reduced in those circumstances.

I think a good practical take is that people feel what they call reduced agency when their expectations/desires around what they can choose from isn’t met.

 

[SteveC]

I've been thinking about this thread a lot lately, especially since I'm both running and playing in a game at the moment. It gives me the chance to look at agency from both sides of the screen.

I'm running Abomination Vaults in PF2. This is a dungeon crawl and the whole point of it is to explore the vaults and stop the big bad. That's baked into the cake for the game, and I had to get player buy-in at the start. If you want to open a cooking school or go on a world pilgrimage (both awesome ideas) this ... isn't the game for you. So that's less agency.

But, I give the group as much autonomy as possible about exploring the complex and making allies or enemies with the factions they encounter. Some they have rolled initiative on sight with. Others they've negotiated with. They've tried to use their knowledge and abilities to figure out what's going on and tackle it in a different way than perhaps the module intended. And that's great. They seem to leave the game excited about what's next and coming up with plans for how to save the day. There are a couple of ticking clocks at the moment that they are just becoming aware of, so that brings a sense of urgency to the game so they can't do everything they might like, but I still give them enough time to do what's most important to them. I have high player engagement with the game, and the sessions are fun.

I am playing in Dungeon Heist at the moment, and we're just about to wrap it up (at least I think so ... this is a "the princess is in another castle" adventure somewhat). The DM for this game is brand new, and is learning as we go. What's amazing is how well he's giving us agency about how to tackle problems. We have to acquire a MacGuffin and that's led us all over the city, but the DM has worked in our backgrounds into everything we do. I'm playing a bard and failed actor, and there have been so many scenes involving the theater and productions in the game. We tracked down an important location, and I was able to just bluff my way into the Green Room by knowing the culture and the people involved. Another character is a kobold from the dock ward, and he has known just about every important location we've had to go to. Even though a lot of the adventure is forced, we feel like we can explore it using our character's knowledge and backgrounds so that they make a real impact. And this is from a first time DM!

What I'm trying to show is that even though these are pretty linear adventures, the GM/DM can still give a strong sense of agency to the characters by leaning into their backgrounds and just being flexible. I think both of these games are well within the confines of how D&D/PF2 are typically played, but flexibility and listening to the players has made both games better.

Hopefully that sparked some thoughts from you.

 

[FrogReaver]

I can only speak for myself when I say that I don't need, heck I don't even want, the game to make my personal goals central to play. It's not that I don't give my PC goals, personality and background, I do. It's great when and if the DM incorporates those into play.

But it is a different focus, I'd rather explore and discover external things. My own goals and aspirations for my PC can then change, grow and inform how and why I make the decisions I do.

But if character focus is what makes a game work for you, great. I just don't think it's inherently better.

Right. Since it’s not something you desire or expect then for you it’s not related to agency. To me that’s becoming the defining line on agency.

 

[Aldarc]

@pemerton played 4e in an intentionally more narrative way than most others (as they have other not assumed narrative games, such as classic Traveler), so I'm not sure that really a strawman.

unlike others who say that only narrativist games can have high player agency.

Emphasis mine. To the best of my knowledge, no one has said or argued that only narrative games can have high player agency. That is most definitely an egregious strawman, Micah.

I think people in real life can have a great deal of agency, even if, like in D&D we can only affect the world around us by our words and deed. If you take that as an insult I can't help it. It's certainly not meant to be.

But we are talking about player agency. This is to say the agency that I as the player when playing this game. You restrict your sense of what is agency to be virtually identical with what you call "character agency." However, that is not the full range of agency that a player has when playing a given tabletop roleplaying game. This poo poo definition of yours excludes other tabletop roleplaying games! It excludes the player agency that exists in other tabletop games outside of your own preferences. That's the issue, Oofta. That's what reeks of OneTrueWayism. That's what's insulting, Oofta.

I disagree with the very concept of "Lack of agency comes from not implementing this specific style of play."

You are disagreeing with a strawman while refusing or doging the point that's at issue in what I am arguing, Oofta. Please stop it.

Which is fine. It's not that I don't understand,

If you understood, then you wouldn't miscontrue. But as you are constantly misconstruting people's arguments, it leads me to believe that either you don't understand or you do but choose to misconstrue them. Take your pick.

it's I just disagree that it makes a difference to the amount of agency someone has. It's just another tool, another option, a different way of achieving goals.

Any definition of agency that requires a specific rule option is just a circular argument to me. Agency is increased by this option therefore this option increases agency.

You claim to run a high agency game, and that your games are higher agency than other games of D&D that someone may run, such as in an adventure path. On what non-circular basis are you making your comparative argument?