D&D General What is player agency to you?

[pemerton]

If you can make 4E a narrative game you can make any edition of D&D a narrative game.

Really? Moldvay Basic? How would it be done?

I've actually played vanilla narrativist AD&D. I've posted in this thread about why AD&D is not the best vehicle, and about some of the challenges, particularly in respect of action resolution.

This is why I come back to issues around familiarity and experience. Assertion and unreasoned conjecture are cheap. But these are empirical claims: so what's the evidence?

 

[pemerton]

I second this why... narrativism can be slapped onto anything.

Is this claim based on your extensive experience of doing so?

Or are you just guessing?

 

[pemerton]

The problem is that we don't get details from people who like both types of games, we get lopsided views because the games appeal to different personalities and goals.

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

You mean @hawkeyefan, or @Aldarc, or even @soviet who (judging purely from some posts) seems more comfortable with mid-ish level player agency than I tend to be.

I've also posted about my Classic Traveller play, which had two or three sessions of relatively low agency exploration. I enjoyed those well enough, but as GM I did take deliberate steps to try and nudge play in a high agency direction after the first couple.

So anyway, those people are posting in this thread. You just seem not to believe them.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You mean @hawkeyefan, or @Aldarc, or even @soviet who (judging purely from some posts) seems more comfortable with mid-ish level player agency than I tend to be.

I've also posted about my Classic Traveller play, which had two or three sessions of relatively low agency exploration. I enjoyed those well enough, but as GM I did take deliberate steps to try and nudge play in a high agency direction after the first couple.

So anyway, those people are posting in this thread. You just seem not to believe them.

All those people prefer narrative more than classic or trad, clearly, because they've spent a lot of energy talking about it and extolling its praises. I'd like to hear from someone who actually likes both and doesn't strongly favor one over the other.

Clearly its not going to be me.

 

[hawkeyefan]

False Equivalences are false. Board Games are not equal to Roleplaying Games. Not that it makes a difference. Agency is binary. More choices =/= more agency. Fewer choices =/= less agency. What you value in your choices = how agency feels to you. You may FEEL that more choices grant you more agency, but that's subjective opinion. Your agency remains the same. Either you have the freedom to make choices to affect the outcome of the game or you don't.

I'm comparing two board games. We can likewise compare two RPGs.

We're talking about player agency. How is that established in a game? Each game may do it differently.

Possibility =/= what is happening. Unless the DM actually engages that authority in an abuse to force you down one path or remove valid possibilities, he's not deciding what options are there.

So a DM who presents the obstacle of a locked door isn't deciding what options are available to the players? The nature of the obstacle has significant influence... and who determines obstacles? Who determines the chances for different methods of dealing with an obstacle? Who decides what's "realistic" enough to work?

And absent such an abuse of authority and power, this is not happening. Such abuses are rare.

Ha check @bloodtide 's posts for examples.

Nope. Not presenting is as objective at all. Just look at people who love the fighter and hate the fighter. Think wizards are overpower or don't.

So that's a good example. Would you say that a high level wizard... able to cast spells of all levels has more ability to influence the game world than a low level fighter?

However, and I did say "I think..." which you conveniently ignore in order to accuse me of claiming objectivity, if you bring all the classes up to the point where they can engage all pillars equally, I think that it will enhance the game. That's a quality increase and not an agency one.

I'm not accusing you of anything. I'm saying I don't know what your point about quality was.

 

[hawkeyefan]

All those people prefer narrative more than classic or trad, clearly, because they've spent a lot of energy talking about it and extolling its praises. I'd like to hear from someone who actually likes both and doesn't strongly favor one over the other.

Clearly its not going to be me.

Honestly, I actually prefer something more definitively trad than 5e. But I do enjoy 5e. There are ways it can be run that make me enjoy it more or less.

I like narrative games, too. If I extoll the virtues of those games more, it's only because they are newer to me, and so I'm still learning about them, where as D&D is pretty much a known quantity.

 

[hawkeyefan]

No. Can 5e be like that, sure, any published module to a degree is, regardless of how freeform the DM allows the game to be. Any sandbox is not however.

So a published module can be run very strictly, let's say, or a bit looser? And then a sandbox is something else? And you think these different types of games have different levels of agency? Or the same?

 

[Arilyn]

All those people prefer narrative more than classic or trad, clearly, because they've spent a lot of energy talking about it and extolling its praises. I'd like to hear from someone who actually likes both and doesn't strongly favor one over the other.

Clearly its not going to be me.

I play and enjoy both equally. I find that narrative style games give me more agency in terms of filling out the world, forging my character's path and having a more equal role in developing cooperative experiences. The down side is there can be no coasting on days you're feeling tired and creatively drained. These games often need everyone to be on their toes and fully engaged. The up side is the sense of immediacy and the engagement of the players. It's a lot of fun and adds extra challenge. You really get to dig into who your character is. And it is cool that you know the GM has prepped very little, and players are forging their own destinies. No looking for those plot hooks. But, once again, it requires full attention and can go awry more easily, which even Ron Edwards admits in his annotated Sorcerer.

I enjoy traditional games because discovering plot hooks, solving mysteries in a traditional fashion, exploring ruins or a strange dark forest that the GM has created is fun. There is still plenty of room for character growth and I feel like I'm caught up in adventure. I enjoy free role play without the need to be guided by dice rolls, which can be disruptive. I enjoy having stretches without the constant pressure and busyness of PbtA games, for example. The downside is disengaging from the GM's plot or even plots if it's a sandbox. And sometimes what's important to my character can get lost.

In terms of agency, both styles can have high agency. Narrative games give players more because they are not relying on GM for all the world stuff. But this is not a scale of quality. Many times I don't want agency outside my character. Other times, I really love the story now style.

This got long winded...

 

[pemerton]

This got long winded...

It's a nice post.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I feel like you're taking a very subjective thing and trying to present it as an objective thing in order to prove the other thing that's actually objective is subjective.

View attachment 292693

Mod Note:

With this last part, you clearly made a personal jab at the poster instead of sticking to addressing the poster’s assertions. That’s out of line, and could lead to stronger consequences than a mere reminder like this one.