D&D General What is player agency to you?

[hawkeyefan]

I’m fairly certain it was done really early in this thread a few times and I know for a fact it’s been done in previous agency discussion threads in this site. I’m not pulling this out of a hat. It’s personally happened to me. I’ve talked about character agency and people have chimed in that characters don’t have agency - essentially shutting down my entire point on that 1 technicality because they viewed my use of ‘character agency’ as literally claiming characters have agency instead of the agency a player has via control of their character. I think avoiding that scenario by using different jargon would only aid conversation.

I’ve done that repeatedly in this thread. I’ve done it not to shut down your point so much as to use it to highlight why there shouldn’t even be disagreement about degreesof agency.

Characters have no agency. No will of their own. They can’t influence anything themselves. The player controls everything.

This is simple fact. So if you’re using “character agency” in this manner, I think it’s simply mistaken.

If, however, what you mean by “character agency” is what the player is allowed to do in the game is limited to actions available to the character… then I think it’s something different, and it’s a perfectly good point to make.

It’s a good point because it’s a description of a limit to player agency. Players cannot influence the game world except as they are able to do so via their character. This both shows that there are degrees of agency, and also that some folks prefer less agency.

I’ve pointed this out about three times now. Some folks just can’t seem to accept that D&D has less of something.

 

[Campbell]

This is a digression, but not all roleplaying games feature the same division of roles and responsibilities for players and especially for GMs. The primary difference between traditional roleplaying games and a Story Now game like Apocalypse World is a difference in what GMs are expected to do and the permissions expressed for them to do so. Not in "metagame" mechanics. Some Story Now games feature them, and some do not. Some traditional games feature them, and some do not.

The primary distinction between Story Now and more traditional play modes is that the GM is obligated to frame scenes which challenge the character and or game's premise. Then they let the game's natural flow and structure do its part. The GM is not a world builder or referee. Instead, they create dynamic situations and scenarios that are directly relevant to who the characters are as people.

Generally, all a player is expected to do is play their character with integrity and follow through on their desires and goals. Note that the sort of challenges we are talking about here are not can I accomplish task X?, but how does X change me or to do Y what am I willing to sacrifice?

This is demonstrably different than players creating setting details out of thin air and/or play that is based on reinforcing rather than challenging premise. I would appreciate if people would distinguish between the two even if they do not like either.

 

[Campbell]

When it comes to "character agency" as a concept I think it's important to note that even in a game where player agency is limited to the constraints of what their character could do it is also constrained by the actual format of play. Regardless of fiction damn near no play group is going to play through a negotiation that takes 3-4 days because it would be interminably boring. Minimal emphasis will be put on characters do things apart from the group in traditional play oriented around adventure fiction. You get the idea.

It might be limited by character action, but that's not all it's limited by.

 

[Maxperson]

I’d suggest that’s just a natural language thing. Imagine how needlessly wordy it would have been to say: reaction - an attack where the attack roll prior to applying this spells effect would be successful.

Sure, and kinda dumb to write it that way.

Instead they would just have said 1 reaction. Then in the body of the spell they would have written that language in like they did in 3e with some feats and abilities.

 

[Micah Sweet]

3E D&D gets rid of FitM saving throws, to the extreme detriment of the fighter!

I don't know of any version of D&D that gets rid of FitM hit points.

Not D&D proper, no. There's some good OSR work in the area though, and other 3pp.

 

[pemerton]

The primary distinction between Story Now and more traditional play modes is that the GM is obligated to frame scenes which challenge the character and or game's premise. Then they let the game's natural flow and structure do its part. The GM is not a world builder or referee. Instead, they create dynamic situations and scenarios that are directly relevant to who the characters are as people.

Generally, all a player is expected to do is play their character with integrity and follow through on their desires and goals. Note that the sort of challenges we are talking about here are not can I accomplish task X?, but how does X change me or to do Y what am I willing to sacrifice?

This is pretty close to this:

To me, it seems obvious that if all players can do is establish "inconsequential", "minor" or "not directly pivotal" elements of the fiction - so that all the significant elements of framing, consequence etc are established by the GM - then their agency is modest at best.

And in order to pre-empt, or at least attempt to pre-empt, confused or incorrect statements about how (say) Dungeon World works: in the RPGs I know that have higher player agency, the players cannot "alter game reality" in the way some posters in this thread are talking about. Rather, they establish their own goals and aspirations for their PCs (including working with the group collectively to establish the appropriate backstory and setting elements to underpin those goals and aspirations), and then the GM relies on those goals and aspirations as cues for their own narration of framing and consequence.

I say this not to in any sense contradict or disagree, simply to reiterate that the point you make is a fundamental one. That for some reason seems to be frequently ignored.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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...

Okay! Yes! I agree that that is agency. It is also, as you say, before actually playing. If the player is only allowed to do this sort of thing while not actually playing, I don't see that as clearing the bar for "player agency." It's not part of play. It certainly influences future play, but isn't part of that play itself.

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

And here we have the mirror of the above. It is only after play, or a good bit before play. There is some limited degree of agency here, because players are taking part in "defining parameters" as I put it before, but not during play.

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.

Okay! Yes! Absolutely! I completely agree with this statement. Unreservedly.

My problem is that this specific thing has been openly and repeatedly rejected by folks as unacceptable. Usually with hyperbolic alleged examples, e.g. the "wishing a tower into existence" thing or the "a local noble just appears so that you can be granted an audience with them." You yourself, IIRC, were quite adamant about the latter. Yet, when shorn of the incorrect hyperbolic elements, it seems no different from the without-prior-GM-approval declaration that the PC has been to a town before. The player is changing the parameters of the adventure without having to metaphorically submit their forms to the GM 30 days in advance, signed in triplicate.

(Believe it or not, there's actually a DW Bard move for exactly that "I've been here before" thing. "A Port In The Storm," IIRC. Non-Bards can always also declare such things, of course, but they do not get the clear costs and benefits for doing so, instead simply feeding that detail into the ongoing fiction generation process. The formal move grants clear results, lacking a formal move means you must talk it out and can't be sure any specific result will occur.)

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'

Yes, I would say that that is a misunderstanding.

Again, that "wish things into existence" ability really isn't that common, I don't even know games that really let you do that. Maybe Fate? Certainly not any of the PbtA games I've played. Blades in the Dark's Flashbacks can seem like that, but I've already broken down how I disagree with that analysis for that example.

There are negative consequences for attempting something and failing, certainly. But the simple reason for why there aren't negative consequences for trying and failing to simply fiat rewrite reality is that...you can't do that. Not in most "narrative" games.

Dungeon World's Defy Danger move is useful here. Quoting the full text, including explanatory stuff and examples, from the SRD.

Defy Danger​

When you act despite an imminent threat or suffer a calamity, say how you deal with it and roll. If you do it...

• by powering through, +Str
• by getting out of the way or acting fast, +Dex
• by enduring, +Con
• with quick thinking, +Int
• through mental fortitude, +Wis
• using charm and social grace, +Cha

✴On a 10+, you do what you set out to, the threat doesn’t come to bear. ✴On a 7–9, you stumble, hesitate, or flinch: the GM will offer you a worse outcome, hard bargain, or ugly choice.

[Editor's note: if you roll 6-, the GM makes a hard move, or a soft move if that makes more sense. This is usually a Bad Thing. All text after this is explanatory, not part of the move itself.]

You defy danger when you do something in the face of impending peril. This may seem like a catch-all. It is! Defy danger is for those times when it seems like you clearly should be rolling but no other move applies.

Defy danger also applies when you make another move despite danger not covered by that move. For example, hack and slash assumes that’s you’re trading blows in battle—you don’t need to defy danger because of the monster you’re fighting unless there’s some specific danger that wouldn’t be part of your normal attack. On the other hand, if you’re trying to hack and slash while spikes shoot from hidden traps in the walls, those spikes are a whole different danger.

Danger, here, is anything that requires resilience, concentration, or poise. This move will usually be called for by the GM. She’ll tell you what the danger is as you make the move. Something like “You’ll have to defy danger first. The danger is the steep and icy floor you’re running across. If you can keep your footing, you can make it to the door before the necromancer’s magic gets you.”

Which stat applies depends on what action you take and your action has to trigger the move. That means you can’t defy danger from a steep and icy floor with a charming smile just so you can use Cha, since charmingly smiling at the icy floor does nothing to it. On the other hand, making a huge leap over the ice would be Str, placing your feet carefully would be Dex, and so on. Make the move to get the results.

GM: Emory, as you climb up the side of the ravine you spy a cultist on a ledge nearby who evokes a frost spell and covers the side of the cliff with ice! If you want to keep climbing, you need to defy danger or you’ll fall.

Emory: No way, I am too tough. I grit my teeth and dig my nails into the wall, climbing one hand at a time. I’m using Con, okay? I got an 8, though

GM: Hmm, well, I think the only way you can gain any traction, tough guy, is if you use your dagger to pull yourself up the last few feet. It’s going to be lodged in there until you have some time to pull it loose and there’s an angry spellcaster nearby.

Emory: I can always get a new dagger when I get home. Time to finish this climb and that cultist.

GM: The athach is swinging his burly third arm down at you, knobby fingers gripping a broken branch. What are you doing, Valeria?

Valeria: So he wants to fight, huh? Let’s do it. I hack and slash him, swinging my sword at his legs.

GM: Now hold on there, champ. He’s already got you at a disadvantage. You can jump into the fray but you’ll take that club head on unless you defy danger first.

Valeria: Pfft, he’s no match for Valeria the Red! I leap aside like a leaf in the wind, then I start hacking and slashing.

GM: Defy danger with your Dex, please and thank you.

Octavia: I’ve had enough of this ogre, I’m going to drop my shield and swing my hammer in both hands. Hack and slash, right?

GM: You drop your shield? That’s a bad idea–now you have to defy danger because the ogre is going to bash you.

Octavia: Are you sure? Isn’t that what hack and slash is? Trading blows and stuff?

GM: Yes, duh, of course. I need another cup of coffee–hack and slash it is, make your move!

That is a lot of text, so I apologize, but it's really quite valuable. Defy Danger is one of the most common moves by design, but also purely by conception. "Act despite difficulty," so long a that difficulty isn't already bound up in some other move (like Hack & Slash) is going to cover a lot of ground.

But note, here...there is no wishing anything into existence. There is no expending plot coupons. There's a situation, the GM calls for Defy Danger, the player proposes their solution, and assuming it's reasonable, the roll happens. This sets the consequences (good, complicated, bad), and the conversation continues. It's perfectly valid for players to question whether Defy Danger is warranted, and for them to present a case for why their approach should work even if it's unorthodox. Note, though, the section about how you can't smile at ice to avoid slipping. That's an example of the need for new fiction (how are you going to get out of this???) to follow from the existing fiction (it's ice, ice does not just yield because you made a funny quip and gave it a winsome smile.)

 

[FrogReaver]

Not advocating. Simply noting that in D&D the player can have a type of certainty that the character does not.

On that I agree.

 

[Maxperson]

Okay! Yes! I agree that that is agency. It is also, as you say, before actually playing. If the player is only allowed to do this sort of thing while not actually playing, I don't see that as clearing the bar for "player agency." It's not part of play. It certainly influences future play, but isn't part of that play itself.


And here we have the mirror of the above. It is only after play, or a good bit before play. There is some limited degree of agency here, because players are taking part in "defining parameters" as I put it before, but not during play.

In my game the players wouldn't tell me things like that outside of the game. They'd simply announce that they are leaving town and heading to Cursed Fortress to seek treasure. Then play would continue with them traveling to the fortress. By the time they get there, it would be a session or a few sessions, which is plenty of time for me to prepare. If they somehow have fast travel and can get there right away, it would be one of those rare instances where I have to pause the game and let them know that I'm not ready for the fortress yet and have to prep, so we will continue playing next week. Then we would break out Terraforming Mars or something and play a board game.

My problem is that this specific thing has been openly and repeatedly rejected by folks as unacceptable. Usually with hyperbolic alleged examples, e.g. the "wishing a tower into existence" thing or the "a local noble just appears so that you can be granted an audience with them." You yourself, IIRC, were quite adamant about the latter. Yet, when shorn of the incorrect hyperbolic elements, it seems no different from the without-prior-GM-approval declaration that the PC has been to a town before. The player is changing the parameters of the adventure without having to metaphorically submit their forms to the GM 30 days in advance, signed in triplicate.

(Believe it or not, there's actually a DW Bard move for exactly that "I've been here before" thing. "A Port In The Storm," IIRC. Non-Bards can always also declare such things, of course, but they do not get the clear costs and benefits for doing so, instead simply feeding that detail into the ongoing fiction generation process. The formal move grants clear results, lacking a formal move means you must talk it out and can't be sure any specific result will occur.)

For me it would depend. If the character's backstory is that he's from the area and/or has traveled widely in the country, then I wouldn't make him roll and would just go with it. If the backstory has placed him kinda sorta almost near the area and he hasn't travelled, I will give it a roll since the outcome is in doubt. If they have just arrived in a far away land it ain't gonna happen. There's no way he has been here before.

 

[FrogReaver]

Not advocating. Simply noting that in D&D the player can have a type of certainty that the character does not.

Rolemaster (for instance) is different in this respect.

Thank you. I wasn't following.