D&D General What is player agency to you?

[Micah Sweet]

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.

You do seem to have a pretty balanced view. My preference would be 1e, OD&D, and OSR based off those, but I do like Level Up for a 5e that hews closer to what I like.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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...

Exactly what I was looking for. Thank you.

 

[mamba]

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?

I’d say different, with the sandbox leaning towards more agency.

Ultimately it depends on the module and DM. In a module you are more likely to run into it’s boundaries than in a sandbox. At that time it is a matter of what the DM does as a result, roll with the punches or bounce you back when you cross this invisible border. Some modules are a lot more open / sandbox-y than others too.

You might never run into the borders, then it does not really matter / is the same

 

[pemerton]

I’d say different, with the sandbox leaning towards more agency.

Ultimately it depends on the module and DM. In a module you are more likely to run into it’s boundaries than in a sandbox. At that time it is a matter of what the DM does as a result, roll with the punches or bounce you back when you cross this invisible border. Some modules are a lot more open / sandbox-y than others too.

You might never run into the borders, then it does not really matter / is the same

In a sandbox, I declare I (as my character) go over here. The GM consults their notes, or applies their heuristic (random table or extrapolation or whatever) and tells me *Here's what you see."

In a module, I declare I (as my character) go over here. The GM consults the module, sees it has nothing useful to say about what's over there, and so uses their control over fiction and backstory to "bounce me back", and tells me "Here's what you see" where some of what I see is the bouncing.

What is the difference in agency in these two cases?

 

[Micah Sweet]

In a sandbox, I declare I (as my character) go over here. The GM consults their notes, or applies their heuristic (random table or extrapolation or whatever) and tells me *Here's what you see."

In a module, I declare I (as my character) go over here. The GM consults the module, sees it has nothing useful to say about what's over there, and so uses their control over fiction and backstory to "bounce me back", and tells me "Here's what you see" where some of what I see is the bouncing.

What is the difference in agency in these two cases?

What does "bounce me back" mean in that context?

 

[bloodtide]

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?

Nope. But it is an easy trap to fall into. One I often see with players.

 

[Aldarc]

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.

Hello there.

You are getting people details from people who like both types of games - @hawkeyefan, @Campbell, @soviet, etc. - so it's possible that the problem isn't that you aren't getting details from people who like both types of games, but that you don't like what you are hearing once you do. Or maybe the problem is that you want someone who more obviously favors traditional games? I dunno.

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.

I spend a lot of energy talking about and extolling the praises of narrative games not because I favor them over traditional games, but, rather, because this forum on the whole strongly favors traditional games over against narrative games and people tend to grossly misrepresent such games. Most people know how traditional games work and then tend to favor those approaches heavily, if not solely, when discussing tabletop games. It's not like there is a shortage of advocates of traditional games here.

IME, that's not the case for narrative games, which sit do sit more on the margins. Many people know so little about them and there is a lot of misinformation and prejudice against them. They are relatively new, especially for people who come into the hobby from D&D and are enculturated by its play approaches. So a lot of my effort tends to be more about explaining how these narrative games work and defending them against people who think that they are dysfunctional, not real roleplaying, or badwrongfun.

But when one looks around this forum with even the tiniest bit of effort, and they will see me posting enthusiastically and starting threads about traditional and OSR games like Numenera/Cypher System, Shadow of the Demon Lord, Dolmenwood, Stars/Worlds Without Number, Index Card RPG, Fantasy AGE, Beyond the Wall and Other Adventures, Black Hack, etc. I also mostly play traditional games. I do have some mixed opinions about 5e, though I originally liked it. But I also think that its lustre has worn off for me for a variety of reasons. But all of my other posting about these games gets conveniently glossed over because I also decide to talk about narrative games that I also enjoy or also want them included in the conversation? That genuinely doesn't seem fair.

There are benefits to all these different games. I don't necessarily want to play narrative games all the time, and I do mostly play traditional games. Many games that I do like also tend to fall into a category that are sometimes called "Trindie Games," which tend to be traditional games that incorporate varying degrees of indie and narrative game elements: e.g., Fate, Cortex, Cypher System, Fabula Ultima, etc.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Hello there.

You are getting people details from people who like both types of games - @hawkeyefan, @Campbell, @soviet, etc. - so it's possible that the problem isn't that you aren't getting details from people who like both types of games, but that you don't like what you are hearing once you do. Or maybe the problem is that you want someone who more obviously favors traditional games? I dunno.


I spend a lot of energy talking about and extolling the praises of narrative games not because I favor them over traditional games, but, rather, because this forum on the whole strongly favors traditional games over against narrative games and people tend to grossly misrepresent such games. Most people know how traditional games work and then tend to favor those approaches heavily, if not solely, when discussing tabletop games. It's not like there is a shortage of advocates of traditional games here.

IME, that's not the case for narrative games, which sit do sit more on the margins. Many people know so little about them and there is a lot of misinformation and prejudice against them. They are relatively new, especially for people who come into the hobby from D&D and are enculturated by its play approaches. So a lot of my effort tends to be more about explaining how these narrative games work and defending them against people who think that they are dysfunctional, not real roleplaying, or badwrongfun.

But when one looks around this forum with even the tiniest bit of effort, and they will see me posting enthusiastically and starting threads about traditional and OSR games like Numenera/Cypher System, Shadow of the Demon Lord, Dolmenwood, Stars/Worlds Without Number, Index Card RPG, Fantasy AGE, Beyond the Wall and Other Adventures, Black Hack, etc. I also mostly play traditional games. I do have some mixed opinions about 5e, though I originally liked it. But I also think that its lustre has worn off for me for a variety of reasons. But all of my other posting about these games gets conveniently glossed over because I also decide to talk about narrative games that I also enjoy or also want them included in the conversation? That genuinely doesn't seem fair.

There are benefits to all these different games. I don't necessarily want to play narrative games all the time, and I do mostly play traditional games. Many games that I do like also tend to fall into a category that are sometimes called "Trindie Games," which tend to be traditional games that incorporate varying degrees of indie and narrative game elements: e.g., Fate, Cortex, Cypher System, Fabula Ultima, etc.

Those games you listed at the end all fall into the narrative box for me. I don't see any of them as traditional games, because of the narrative mechanics. I really don't care for aspects, and similar mechanics designed to mechanize free roleplay and PC personality (that includes 5e BIFTS, by the way, so be aware I'm not a hypocrite about this).

I accept that have varied interests, and talk about different ones, but I'm in a lot of threads on this site, and most of them have plenty of narrative game fans posting regularly, so I don't know how anyone can say there's a shortage of advocates for them here.

 

[Aldarc]

Those games you listed at the end all fall into the narrative box for me. I don't see any of them as traditional games, because of the narrative mechanics. I really don't care for aspects, and similar mechanics designed to mechanize free roleplay and PC personality (that includes 5e BIFTS, by the way, so be aware I'm not a hypocrite about this).

Okay, but they're not. You need to look at the whole picture and not just fixate on any narrative mechanics you see. Consider, for example, that in Cortex Prime, a GM can run an adventure path for Tales of Xadia. So what you need to look at instead are what those narrative mechanics do, what the GM and player roles are, and how everything fits together.

I accept that have varied interests, and talk about different ones, but I'm in a lot of threads on this site, and most of them have plenty of narrative game fans posting regularly, so I don't know how anyone can say there's a shortage of advocates for them here.

It's likely confirmation bias. The people you are talking about relatively small active minority in a sea of traditional gamers. If our situations were reversed, I think that your viewpoint would be put into proper perspective, and I think that you would be quite humbled by that revelation.

 

[Maxperson]

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

So again, agency is binary. You have it or you don't, so the comparison doesn't mean much as far as how much agency you have. "How much" is based on your feelings about the various aspects of agency.

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

Each game may place priority on different aspects of agency, yes. That doesn't make that game have more or less agency than the RPG over there that has a different priority. It just means that people who want the focus of the first RPG will FEEL like they have greater agency than the second RPG.

So a DM who presents the obstacle of a locked door isn't deciding what options are available to the players?

That is correct.

The nature of the obstacle has significant influence...

That is also correct.

Picking a door of stone rather than wood doesn't mean that the DM is sitting there thinking of which options to include and which options to exclude. The DM doesn't pick options. Options exist independent of the DM.

Who determines the chances for different methods of dealing with an obstacle? Who decides what's "realistic" enough to work?

The DM, but this is not selecting which options are available. The players are coming up with options. If an option isn't possible, say if the PC spits on the door, then it was never a true option that existed and the DM will decide it doesn't work. Setting DCs is also not selecting which options are there.

Ha check @bloodtide 's posts for examples.

Great example! I've seen huge numbers of DMs post on this site. I can count on 1 hand with fingers left over the number of DMs like Bloodtide that have posted. He's the second one I've seen, and internet anonymity means that his claims can't be substantiated. Even so, it's a miniscule percentage of posting DMs here who make claims like his. This just backs me up.

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?

Maybe. A low level fighter with a noble background could easily do more to change the world than a wizard with his 9th level spells. Roleplaying is more powerful than simple mechanical spells. It would be nice, though, if fighters had more support in the social arena.