D&D General What is player agency to you?

[FrogReaver]

Nothing @EzekielRaiden has posted contradicts either of these points. He said that the DW player gets to (metaphorically) define new parameters for what constitutes an exhibit, after the game starts. That doesn't preclude following from the fiction, nor does it entail anything about "I win" buttons. (I mean, what would an "I win" button even look like in DW?)

I don’t see how following from the fiction doesn’t preclude setting the parameters that constitute an exhibit.

Perhaps we have different ideas around what setting parameters that constitute an exhibit means.

 

[mamba]

That's not been my impression.

what do you consider the below?

At the start of the session where the PCs had returned to the tower, the player announced an additional bit of backstory - prior to being driven out of the tower, his PC had been crafting a nickel-silver mace (the Falcon's Claw) in anticipation of enchanting it. This did not violate any credibility test, and in fact seemed rather consonant with the already-established character and backstory. The PC therefore searched through the ruined tower, looking for the Falcon's Claw. A Scavenging check was called for, and failed. Thus the PC did not find what he was looking for: instead, he found something unlooked for

 

[FrogReaver]

what do you consider the below?

A great example of a player declaration not following from the fiction (nor being a pre authored backstory).

Essentially it is an example at odds with the principle of following from the fiction - which has definitely been the focus for the last 50 pages or so.

It’s a great example to bring up and shows why these discussions break down so often.

 

[Maxperson]

If the GM is not deciding any destination, then what are they doing? How does one "find common ground" without either (a) reaching a compromise with someone else, such that both parties determine the end result and thus recognizing their independent agency, or (b) declaring what the result will be, which the other(s) must simply accept (or walk away from, but I assume people who want to keep playing)?

How does one "harmonize"? What does that mean? Because to me, the "harmonizing" is not at all like being a conductor. In fact, I find the analogy completely inapplicable and useless--to the point that I nearly responded to it backwards because I thought you were calling the players conductors. Conductors assist other people in their performance of a piece. GMs do not "assist" players at all, in the GM-authorship mode being discussed here. GMs are assisted by players. It is the GM actually doing the action; the players simply provide inputs.

Assisting is exactly what DM's do. The players are playing their instruments(the PCs) telling the DM what music that they are playing(their action) and the DM conducts the different harmonies and weaves them together(narrates the results) which then sets the players up to play some more music(declare more actions) on their instruments(PCs).

He also assists them by letting them know what the theme(playstyle and setting) for the music is so that they can play music that fits the theme.

Whose hands are on the metaphorical instrument--the player, or the GM? Because as far as I can tell, it's exclusively the GM. That's why every single time, someone asks something to the effect of, "Well, did you clear it with the GM well in advance?"

Conductors don't "clear" orchestra performers well in advance of the performance of a piece. They do nothing like "clearing" anything. If the performer won't perform the piece as intended, they won't be asked to perform the piece at all.

The analogy does not hold.

The analogy is fine. It's just that like almost every analogy, it's not perfect.

 

[Oofta]

A great example of a player declaration not following from the fiction (nor being a pre authored backstory).

Essentially it is an example at odds with the principle of following from the fiction - which has definitely been the focus for the last 50 pages or so.

It’s a great example to bring up and shows why these discussions break down so often.

Statements like "following from the fiction" sound official and all, but to me it's incredibly nebulous. Someone needs to make a judgement call as to whether the declaration really does follow from the fiction. I do this with my D&D game as well, particularly with backstories. The reason I want editorial control over the backstory is because I want the backstory to follow the fiction of the established campaign world.

If you don't you can get something like...

 

[Maxperson]

And that is exactly when you exercised your agency, and thus did not allow the players to exercise theirs.

This is a mistaken belief that not having all 3 trillion options equates to no agency. You can in fact remove 10 billion of the 3 trillion options and the players still have full agency to pick from 2 trillion 990 billion options that remain.

The players did not make the road. So what. They got a map that showed them that the road was there. So what. They still have the option to travel the road or not, pick the direction, go offroad, decide to destroy the road, pave the road, and on and on and on and on. They have full agency still.

They have the freedom to visit whatever exhibits in the museum they like. They cannot define new parameters for what constitutes an exhibit, nor can they visit something outside the museum.

Well, that's not true at all.

Player: "I go outside the museum."

or...

Player: "I go find the blah blah blah in the museum."
DM: "I didn't even think of that, but you're correct that one would be here."

Said thing wasn't described or placed into that museum until the player had his PC go to it.

Or...

Player: "Curator, you don't have a Peanut Chicpea Owlbear exhibit. They are the smallest known owlbears. There's room in the corner over there for one and I happen to have a specimen. I'll give you 1000 gold to set it up."

The player there just created a new exhibit and with that kind of money can decide all the parameters.

Again, full agency requires that the players have options for THEM to decide things that affect the game world, not every option possible.

 

[FrogReaver]

Statements like "following from the fiction" sound official and all, but to me it's incredibly nebulous. Someone needs to make a judgement call as to whether the declaration really does follow from the fiction. I do this with my D&D game as well, particularly with backstories. The reason I want editorial control over the backstory is because I want the backstory to follow the fiction of the established campaign world.

If you don't you can get something like...

I suspect following from the fiction to them may mean something closer to ‘passing a credibility or plausibility test’.

And if that’s what it boils down to that’s fine. But That’s certainly not how I take following from the fiction to mean. It’s such a different concept it’s very misleading (not intentionally I’m sure).

 

[FrogReaver]

This is a mistaken belief that not having all 3 trillion options equates to no agency. You can in fact remove 10 billion of the 3 trillion options and the players still have full agency to pick from 2 trillion 990 billion options that remain.

The players did not make the road. So what. They got a map that showed them that the road was there. So what. They still have the option to travel the road or not, pick the direction, go offroad, decide to destroy the road, pave the road, and on and on and on and on. They have full agency still.

Well, that's not true at all.

Player: "I go outside the museum."

or...

Player: "I go find the blah blah blah in the museum."
DM: "I didn't even think of that, but you're correct that one would be here."

Said thing wasn't described or placed into that museum until the player had his PC go to it.

Or...

Player: "Curator, you don't have a Peanut Chicpea Owlbear exhibit. They are the smallest known owlbears. There's room in the corner over there for one and I happen to have a specimen. I'll give you 1000 gold to set it up."

The player there just created a new exhibit and with that kind of money can decide all the parameters.

Again, full agency requires that the players have options for THEM to decide things that affect the game world, not every option possible.

One thing I think we all agree on is that D&D doesn’t typically grant players the kinds of narrative control that narrative game players are granted.

I just want to make clear that part isn’t in dispute (I think you agree). It’s what that fact means in relation to agency that gets disputed.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

@Manbearcat @pemerton @soviet @hawkeyefan

Let's say the four of you are sitting down to a game of D&D/PF2e/some-d20-system, (as it's the only system I run willingly). I pull out the map of the world, give you a brief world history/geography lesson. Nothing too granular, just really enough to give a conceptual idea of the gameworld. I tell you that we will begin the game in Townshire, and I ask you all to tell me what it is you're doing there and why you're there doing it.

What are your thoughts about this so far? Have we already gone off the rails as far as you're concerned?

​

We haven't really DONE anything yet, but so far so good. I mean this is not too far off from Dungeon World in some sense. IN THEORY DW doesn't presuppose ANY pre-existing fiction at all, but its not like the participants can't agree informally to the existence of Townshire and some facts about it. The only other difference is in terms of DW formally presenting bonds between the PCs, but nothing stops you from declaring the same sorts of things in vanilla d20 or whatever. DW ties them to XP, but I don't think that's absolutely critical.

So, the question is what happens from there? In a classic DW game the GM will now frame the first scene, probably something that is drawn from, say, bond text. Like: "Oh, I see that the halfling believes the elf is weak and must be protected. As you step out the back door of the alehouse to relieve yourselves, a dark figure jumps the elf!" Now we're addressing the halfling's belief in his role as protector and associated assumptions about being a 'hard guy' and opinion of elves, etc. Maybe he's also got an alignment of 'Neutral: Avoid detection' and these appear to be the guys he wants to avoid (they will be, of course) then he's got a conflict between his interests. Leap into the fray to save the elf, or avoid detection and maybe infiltrate this dark figure's organization. Maybe at this point the GM asks a pointed question "why do you want to infiltrate this organization, who are they to you?"

Notice how play is focused on character here. There's no considerations like the GM thinking of a list of organizations that he's invented which might be operating in Townshire and extrapolating action from that. No, its actually arising out of the nature of the characters themselves, and THEN some sort of 'world authoring' happens. Maybe at this point the GM has already got an idea for a front in mind, so he may mix in elements of that idea, its an Arc Assassin. They're dedicated to wiping out the elvish filth from the world! Whatever.

 

[Maxperson]

One thing I think we all agree on is that D&D doesn’t typically grant players the kinds of narrative control that narrative game players are granted.

I just want to make clear that part isn’t in dispute (I think you agree). It’s what that fact means in relation to agency that gets disputed.

Yes. Narrative play enhances certain aspects of agency because those that play that style like those aspects. It doesn't grant them more agency in an objective sense, but subjectively it would seem like they have more agency than in a more traditional game.