D&D General What is player agency to you?

[pemerton]

However, spending fate points in Fate or Inspiration in D&D 5e lies outside of decisions that the character can do or make in the fiction, but these are things that the player can do when playing the game, but they would be excluded as player agency if you talked about player agency strictly in terms of the in-fiction agency of the character.

In some cases, I think these sorts of expenditures sit on a slightly blurry boundary: when used to buff an action resolution roll, in circumstances where the action is being made by the character whose player spends the point, I often see them as corresponding to trying harder, and that is very close to being something the character can do, although because it is about emotion and urgency it may not be quite under the character's control.

But a barbarian's rage would probably live in the same space, at least sometimes, I think. And bardic inspiration is also a bit weird - presumably the bard is trying to gee up their friends all the time, and it's not quite clear what is different either in the bard or in the friend when an inspiration die is spent.

Edwards frames the ingame/metagame boundary as turning on "who is considered to "spend" them - character or player." I think that some of these sorts of mechanics are deliberately presented to make that a bit ambiguous. Like bardic inspiration. Or even 5e D&D hit dice.

 

[Oofta]

Bardic inspiration makes perfect sense!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Without being sure about this, the impression I received was that video/computer games are the main sort of game the author had in mind.

That mean that, to me, the account of RPGs seemed a bit narrow. There was reference to choosing your own adventure. But when I look at the reference in the article to players choosing their own goals, and think about how contemporary RPG design permits that to be integrated into games that go beyond choosing your own adventure, the article's examples seemed perhaps a bit narrow or not fully exploring what might be possible.

What do you think? Am I being unfair in my reading?

I'm not sure, I have to read it more carefully again, but I got a similar impression. Not that anything said there is inapplicable or incorrect, just that the author has perhaps not explored the full range of possibilities. The material is densely cross-referenced with other articles though too, so it might be necessary to take it in a more holistic fashion to get a true sense of what is implied.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This bit bothered me because it's a quite archaic view of tabletop games (presumably meaning board games here). Players of such games very rarely change rules, especially on the fly, and modern games are usually designed sufficiently tightly that you generally wouldn't want to. If anything, the more limited set of available actions and design tools makes a stronger case that you will end up having the game-experience the designer created.

I think the part you reference here is STRICTLY talking about RPGs, actually. However, I agree it may reflect a bit of a dated or limited experience with the genre. Certainly I would not characterize a game like Dungeon World in this way. I mean, you would not normally need to 'change the rules' in order to do something a bit different, you might devise some custom moves, but this is already covered on the GM side by rules (IE dungeon moves). On the PC side it might be closer to 'hacking the game', but I hardly think it would usually change the experience much except at a very small scale. And frankly, I haven't found the need to hack a PbtA yet... (well, I might have the URGE to hack Stonetop a bit!).

 

[Pedantic]

I think the part you reference here is STRICTLY talking about RPGs, actually. However, I agree it may reflect a bit of a dated or limited experience with the genre. Certainly I would not characterize a game like Dungeon World in this way. I mean, you would not normally need to 'change the rules' in order to do something a bit different, you might devise some custom moves, but this is already covered on the GM side by rules (IE dungeon moves). On the PC side it might be closer to 'hacking the game', but I hardly think it would usually change the experience much except at a very small scale. And frankly, I haven't found the need to hack a PbtA yet... (well, I might have the URGE to hack Stonetop a bit!).

I did not get the impression the author was alluding to TTRPGs at all here and was specifically thinking about board games, but I can see the alternative take. It's definitely not clear from context.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

narrativists should love shield

What does it have to do with narrativist play at all? I mean, sure, I have no issue with it. Frankly I interpret it as some others, like you are a highly experienced combatant and you KNOW when you are about to feel the bite of steel or magic. At that point, an instant before the attack lands, you release your magical protection and deflect the OTHERWISE HITTING attack. However, its basically just all mechanics, and its a good gamist game mechanic.

 

[soviet]

What does it have to do with narrativist play at all? I mean, sure, I have no issue with it. Frankly I interpret it as some others, like you are a highly experienced combatant and you KNOW when you are about to feel the bite of steel or magic. At that point, an instant before the attack lands, you release your magical protection and deflect the OTHERWISE HITTING attack. However, its basically just all mechanics, and its a good gamist game mechanic.

I think the issue is that it's Fortune in the Middle, which is an unusual fit for D&D but a common technique for narr games.

 

[mamba]

Casting Time: 1 reaction

yeah, forgot about it being a reaction

 

[mamba]

Okay! That's a very interesting development, given we have people very specifically saying they're happy that "trad" games do not do that. Would you care to elaborate? I'm genuinely interested in where you see player agency (as I am using the term, not as

we have several people here with varying opinions on both sides.

If before or during a session zero the player says 'I would want the story to incorporate X' that is player agency. Can also happen between sessions...

If at the end of a session the players say 'we want to go to the cursed fortress and search for the treasure' (instead of doing one of several other things), and the DM then prepares for that for the next session, that is player agency

If during a game the player says 'My character has been in this town before and knows the innkeeper' without this being in the backstory and the DM rolls with it, that is player agency.

There's no "wagering" in Dungeon World--at all. Most "narrative" games don't do that. There is more interest in/concern for asking what things people care about, but no "wagering" anything to accomplish something.

maybe I misunderstood, but it sounded like there frequently is a negative consequence for a failed roll, as far as I can tell as a counterweight for the player's ability to 'wish things into existence'

 

[mamba]

I'm not sure what the point is here - the mechanics are one component of the game's rules. The outcomes of mechanical processes play an important role in determining who can say what, when, about what happens next in the shared fiction.

I am not sure how this is relevant

Either the mechanics are die rolls, as you said in the previous post, then the DM authority comes from rules, and not the mechanics, or the mechanics include the rules, then it comes from the rules part of the mechanics. In either case the point I was replying to was

My opinion is that the authority and ability to dictate events in the game of the GM is not given by the mechanics of the game.

What distinguishes the mechanics of the game from the rules of the game?

If those are the same, then you are simply wrong. If they are different, then that may be true, but predominantly because the mechanics can be overruled by the DM rather than integrating with his authority) or are incomplete, leaving such decisions to the DM.

That still seems to be accurate, no matter whether you lump the rules in with the mechanics or not.