D&D General What is player agency to you?

[hawkeyefan]

I would like to hear from someone who actually  likes both kinds of games, not just played them.

I like 5e! I play it every week.

 

[soviet]

I play 5e every week. Literally just came back from a session tonight. I like it well enough, but i don't love it.

 

[bloodtide]

Mayor: "I want to hire your group to kill the rats in the cellar of the town hall."
Group: "Okay, but we want half now and half later."
Mayor: "That's reasonable."
(some time later)
Group: "Okay DM, we're skipping town with the half payment we received."

The group has options. It does not have to go kill the rats. It would only be a railroad if you contrived through your power as DM to force them into the cellar and made them do it. As you present it above, though, there's no railroad.

Now, I get that many DM would all give the players a high five here and tell the players that they are the best players in the world.

Then there is me.

I don't celebrate the players being jerks. I either bought or made the adventure or "improved" the scene. Either way, as DM, I did something. For the players to just be jerks and say "screw you DM, we are not going on your adventure" is a bad move.

I'd leave the game and/or kick those players out and never game with them again. I don't want to waste my limited game time NOT playing the game.

 

[Maxperson]

Now, I get that many DM would all give the players a high five here and tell the players that they are the best players in the world.

Then there is me.

I don't celebrate the players being jerks.

That's the problem. They are not being jerks by avoiding an encounter and making some easy money. Taking things as a personal slights just may be the source of a lot of your problems with your players.

PCs want to make money. Easy money like that is right up their alley.

I either bought or made the adventure or "improved" the scene. Either way, as DM, I did something. For the players to just be jerks and say "screw you DM, we are not going on your adventure" is a bad move.

Um. There's nothing jerkish about avoid an encounter. If they snuck past a pair of your orcs are they being jerks? If they bribe the kobolds instead of killing them are they being jerks?

Maybe let the players play the game instead of playing your idea of how the game should go. There are tons of ways to successfully complete the adventure. How you wrote/bought it is not the only way.

I'd leave the game and/or kick those players out and never game with them again. I don't want to waste my limited game time NOT playing the game.

Excellent.

 

[bloodtide]

That's the problem. They are not being jerks by avoiding an encounter and making some easy money. Taking things as a personal slights just may be the source of a lot of your problems with your players.

PCs want to make money. Easy money like that is right up their alley.

Did you miss the part that the Adventure is the whole world.

Only Arrogant Hostile players assume they can just randomly do anything in the game on a whim.

Um. There's nothing jerkish about avoid an encounter. If they snuck past a pair of your orcs are they being jerks? If they bribe the kobolds instead of killing them are they being jerks?

Maybe let the players play the game instead of playing your idea of how the game should go. There are tons of ways to successfully complete the adventure. How you wrote/bought it is not the only way.

Your comparing Apples and Oranges now.

Example One: The players agree to go on the Rat Cellar Adventure. The players start the game and play for some time. THEN they stand up and tell the DM "haha fooled you! We lied and will NOT be going on the adventure! Take that DM!"

Example Two: The players as part of an ongoing adventure they have been playing four three hours, as part of that adventure sneak past some orcs or bribe a kobold.

See how the two are not the same?

 

[Maxperson]

Did you miss the part that the Adventure is the whole world.

Only Arrogant Hostile players assume they can just randomly do anything in the game on a whim.

Yeah. You're flat out wrong, again. I'm not going to continue with this discussion with you. Someone needs to be at least in the same ballpark for me to try and continue on.

The players are not arrogant, jerks or hostile for taking the rat money.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Why?

4e is extremely transparent for one thing. As a player I KNOW what the DCs for most things are going to be (they can be varied somewhat, but then there should be some fiction I can see that will signpost that). I know that any major undertaking is a skill challenge and once the level and complexity of that have been described I am entirely certain how many times I have to throw dice to win it. Powers are metered out in a highly regular fashion and, at least in combat, perform in a very well-defined way. A LOT of what my PC can do is based on build elements that I as a player decide (granting 5e is not bad in this area generally either).

There are very well-defined themes and genre elements in 4e, so I know pretty much what it will mean to be a 'Paladin of Kord' and an Eternal Champion, etc. I can leverage all of this to direct my path in the story, and I get to define (at least some) of the quests which signify the major goals and direction of story arcs.

It is a VERY player-facing game that puts all its 'cards' on the table and lets you know what is what without a lot of doubt and controversy. Things that were endlessly problematic in previous editions, like alignment, are either simplified or elided entirely so that they serve a clearer purpose.

And then there is a rich layer of keywords, and improvised action rules, which hook into the other stuff quite clearly. So when it comes time to do something like decide what the impact of using some fire magic underwater is, we all know that A) it won't be drastically nerfed by definition first of all, and B) that we're clear on what is and isn't fire, and what is or isn't water.

It really is a better game for a certain type of story-centered action/adventure fantasy than AD&D, for sure. I also find it better than 5e in this area, mainly because 5e is so deliberately unclear about how a lot of stuff works, it undermines player's ability to rely on things and forces them into the shadow of the GM's 'setting logic' instead. Honestly 4e is just a very natural narrativist system when you play it that way, and 5e is not, it fights you some instead. I don't a big hate on for 5e, but for the type of play I prefer 4e beats it hands down.

 

[Micah Sweet]

4e is extremely transparent for one thing. As a player I KNOW what the DCs for most things are going to be (they can be varied somewhat, but then there should be some fiction I can see that will signpost that). I know that any major undertaking is a skill challenge and once the level and complexity of that have been described I am entirely certain how many times I have to throw dice to win it. Powers are metered out in a highly regular fashion and, at least in combat, perform in a very well-defined way. A LOT of what my PC can do is based on build elements that I as a player decide (granting 5e is not bad in this area generally either).

There are very well-defined themes and genre elements in 4e, so I know pretty much what it will mean to be a 'Paladin of Kord' and an Eternal Champion, etc. I can leverage all of this to direct my path in the story, and I get to define (at least some) of the quests which signify the major goals and direction of story arcs.

It is a VERY player-facing game that puts all its 'cards' on the table and lets you know what is what without a lot of doubt and controversy. Things that were endlessly problematic in previous editions, like alignment, are either simplified or elided entirely so that they serve a clearer purpose.

And then there is a rich layer of keywords, and improvised action rules, which hook into the other stuff quite clearly. So when it comes time to do something like decide what the impact of using some fire magic underwater is, we all know that A) it won't be drastically nerfed by definition first of all, and B) that we're clear on what is and isn't fire, and what is or isn't water.

It really is a better game for a certain type of story-centered action/adventure fantasy than AD&D, for sure. I also find it better than 5e in this area, mainly because 5e is so deliberately unclear about how a lot of stuff works, it undermines player's ability to rely on things and forces them into the shadow of the GM's 'setting logic' instead. Honestly 4e is just a very natural narrativist system when you play it that way, and 5e is not, it fights you some instead. I don't a big hate on for 5e, but for the type of play I prefer 4e beats it hands down.

All of the aspects of 4e you mentioned are things I specifically don't like about it. Funny.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I would like to hear from someone who actually  likes both kinds of games, not just played them.

I played, and extensively GMed, what I would call 'trad' RPG play, mostly, starting in 1975 and extending into the late 1990s, so over 20 years. I surely enjoyed those games, or I wouldn't have played them, although I always felt that there could be better methods of play. Since then I would characterize my play/GMing as being increasingly narrativist, and pretty much all narrativist in the last 10-15 years, though I guess the 2 5e campaigns I was playing in were probably best categorized as trad to neo-trad.

I don't have some big problem with trad or classic, or neo-trad styles of play. I just generally prefer narrativist games. I'm surely qualified to talk about quite a few games that would be seen as being in either style I think. Make of that what you will.

 

[soviet]

In fact although I'm playing 5e and only sort of like it, earlier this year I GM'd some WFRP 1e. The game I GM'd before that (just before the pandemic) was Rolemaster 2e. I love both games and run them RAW with the only house rule being that in RM I gave each player one (1) WFRP-style fate point (basically, an 'ignore this death or maiming' point). I play with zero fudging and try to support player agency wherever I can, although I'm not running them as Narr and there's no player authoring of the setting.