D&D General What is player agency to you?

[FrogReaver]

@FrogReaver

That was not intended to be a point-by-point analysis or specific to one sort of play. The section on a GM being constrained only by the shared fiction was done with more disciplined trad play in mind. The math rocks section was not written with any particular game in mind.

Apologies if you took it as me suggesting you took any position you do not. I know it's frustrating when that happens and it was not my intent. It's why I used the word 'add' at the start of my post - I just had some additional thoughts prompted by and at least somewhat related to what you had written - and honestly while I expected you would disagree with some of what I said, I didn't know exactly what you would and wouldn't.

 

[FrogReaver]

The whole point was to dive into why the process a GM is using to decide what happens should matter to players.

I mostly agree with that - though admittedly i didn't initially read that as the main theme of your post above.

I'm sure we would probably disagree a bit on the specifics here.

 

[Maxperson]

Well my group was playing 2e. We just used some things from 1e (primarily the assassin class). We managed, but there were clearly different system expectations. The game wasn’t really backward compatible.

Those differences aren’t really what I had in mind. It’s very clear from the sections on running the game and Dragon articles at the time and published adventures, that the game shifted significantly from site-based scenarios toward story-based scenarios.

I didn't notice 2e being run in any noticeably different manner than 1e, despite the differences.

Well I would say there is a difference because I have bo way of knowing what your home game is like. Is it similar to an adventure path? You seem to be insisting that it is. In which case, using your game as a starting point doesn’t seem to address the question.

If your game is like an adventure path, then why insist it’s not?

I plan out connected events that span 3rd(because we don't start at 1st) to 16-20th level. I don't detail them as much as an adventure path, though, and the group can generally step off at any time they like.

What’s the typical method?

Everyone, including me, tosses 3 ideas into the middle of the table on pieces of paper. Then we open them and all 18 ideas are written down in on sheets of paper and each of us can veto a single idea that we dislike. That leaves us with 12 themes which we each then rank from 1-12. The 3 ideas which get the most points are then discussed by the group and either the players pick one, or if they can't decide they rank the 3 ideas from 1-3 and we use the highest point total. If the final goes to a vote I will get a vote.

Made what up? Aren’t all campaigns made up? I don’t follow what you’re describing here. Do you mean “the setting” or “the adventure” or something else?

They had me do it rather than the above method. Essentially I came up with an idea myself and just enacted it. It doesn't happen often, but sometimes they don't want to pick the theme.

Was this something that already existed in the setting? Did you have to specifically prepare material because of this decision? If so, what did you prepare? What did the players do?

I use the Forgotten Realms, so the Pirate Isles existed in the south along the Sword Coast prior to their decision, but I had nothing prepared. It took them a while to make their way south, so I had time to make some preparations in response to what they did. If in the middle of being pirates they got bored with it and wanted to do something else, then they could do that.

I react to their decisions.

What was it that you had planned out? It sounds like a story… that it played out over time.

At that point it was, since the players bowed out of it. I determined how the rest of the world was dealing with it(badly) and rumors were heard by the PCs. Had they remained, the story would have been a mutual thing with me reacting to the players. I've had huge portions of prep voided by what they do and had to prep differently, even with the original theme due to what the players do.

How did you determine how things went with it without the players involved?

Randomly. I figured out odds and then rolled for it. Solo play isn't my thing, so I wasn't going to play it out.

How did it continue to show up? Why did you still want those events to matter?

It didn't matter what I wanted. The world is the world. Events are events. And rumors are rumors. This event was a very major one that would eventually touch most of the Realms, so there was no way it wasn't going to come up at least in rumors. My desires had nothing to do with it.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, if we (a) detach anything resembling a unifying process and goal of experience and then (b) utterly atomize all related undertakings and incorporate all manner of irrelevant, peripheral activities (why don't we include the agency to breathe every 2 seconds vs 5...or the agency to sort the almonds in our trailmix vs the cranberries!)...then yes, in that WTF case...no concept of "higher or lower agency" can be evaluated. But at this point...what_are_we_even_doing?

Playing with agency how it actually is.

There is no way this conversation can take place outside of ENWorld. Humans in meatspace just won't tolerate this kind of whatever-it-is-we're-trying-to-do-here.

In my experience, humans in meat space don't even discuss this stuff.

 

[pemerton]

Story Now/Narrative/whatever we call that style of game explicitly tells the GM to ensure whatever fiction is introduced foremast speaks to the characters dramatic needs with the additional constraint that the introduced fiction doesn't contradict any already established fiction. There's a world of difference in that and in basing decisions solely on the fictional positioning and understanding of the NPC's involved.

Yes. That's the whole reason @Campbell included it!

 

[FrogReaver]

Here's the way I look at agency overall:

I think it can basically be broken down into 3 components.

1. Autonomy: The ability to determine the goals your character pursues and the actions they take in pursuit of those goals.
2. Impact: The ability to bring about irrevocable change to the setting as a result of the actions your character takes (without it being essentially given to you). Success must be earned / taken.
3. Content/Thematic Influence: Your ability as a player to influence the content and/or stakes of the setting and scenarios that will be played out at the table.

I hope we can all agree that there are various levels and tolerances of all three that will play out from game to game and will be influenced by both game design and GMing technique. Whether or not you think an aggregate like score of overall agency here is helpful I do think you can talk about it in those terms, although it's likely more useful to address individual dimensions.

This is much closer to the kind of thing I've been advocating for. I think there's a bit missing from those 3 components but I can't quite put my finger on it yet. Also, #3 isn't quite clear to me. Still a solid starting point!

I'd also suggest that Scenario (including setting) instead of game system is the single biggest determining factor in determining the level of each of those components. This is why it's relatively easy to talk about how much autonomy, impact and content/thematic influence that players get in various scenarios in D&D 5e.

Which ultimately makes comparing these things across game systems very difficult - because 2 games systems generally cannot have identical scenarios - because if for no other reason, mechanics are never fully translatable to a different game.

When it comes to the definitions of agency we tend to rely on I think we have a tendency in our hobby to basically use how many of these dimensions to include as a way to stipulate what it is reasonable to expect. Anyone expecting more than the included dimension (Impact when Autonomy is the expectation) tends to get labeled as an entitled malcontent. Sometimes we also decide which dimensions to include to undermine the value of dimensions we do not care for ourselves as a way to say that play that is concerned with a high level of player influence over the content of scenario design basically brings nothing new to table.

On the other side of it some us (myself included at one point) can forget that not everyone personally values these dimensions in the same way.

IMO. All this seems to speak to is the futility of talking about agency in general between games. We each choose different dimensions, we each value those dimensions differently, etc.

I think you were right at the start - that we can meaningfully talk about agency (or better yet, the components of agency) for a specific dimension.

I don't think any level of desire or tolerance for these dimensions of agency is wrong and all should be respected. I do think acting is if one of these dimensions of agency we do not care for or want is not actual agency it can come across as denying the value of that dimension globally if not done with ameliorating language (which it almost never is).

Agreed, though I also think that some dimensions we can generally agree aren't actually very important to talk about of themselves. Though establishing their existence still can be a useful observation in certain contexts.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes. That's the whole reason @Campbell included it!

Glad we all can agree about something

 

[Micah Sweet]

1e and 2e? Nah, they're within a gnat's arse of being exactly the same game. All your to-hit numbers are identical, AC, damage, ability bonuses, hit points, etc. all identical. 2e uses a d10 for initiative instead of a d6, and a few other VERY minor differences like that. It has a bit more extensive weapon specialization rules, etc. Some of the classes are tweaked a bit. The bard is a total rewrite, but would be unexceptional and work fine in 1e. Chaos wizard, specialist mages, those are slightly new, basically extrapolations of the old illusionist class. You can undoubtedly find a few other things, rangers got a fairly modest rewrite for instance.

We didn't even bother to convert our existing 1e PCs, just played them as-is in 2e, it was a non-issue. Typically GMs allowed people to go back and reallocate weapon prof slots and maybe pick NWPs, a few things like that. We picked up the new spell descriptions, though most spells didn't change (there was a bit of juggling to merge in illusions with the main wizard list).

Honestly, in purely mechanical terms what is notable about 2e is that not much is notable! Combat got a very superficial face lift. Oh, and some of the really high level monsters got a power boost, so 2e dragons are significantly upgraded. Also the 'repeat the 20 six times' got removed, which makes low negative AC a lot more scary.

The main thing 2e gave us was a lot more stuff for D&D. For that, I am eternally grateful for it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I didn't notice 2e being run in any noticeably different manner than 1e, despite the differences.

Perhaps you didn’t run them very differently. But my point is that the success of Dragonlance pushed things more toward a focus on story than had existed previously. AD&D by Gygax was mostly site based scenarios. Dungeon crawls. Wilderness exploration. Scenarios where there was some kind of status quo and then the PCs arrive. Modules were 16 to 32 pages, generally speaking. A main map, the key, a description of the scenario, treasure, and statblocks.

Look at 2e. Look at the shift away from site based adventures to more story based adventures. The Time of Troubles and the trilogy if adventures based on that. The Great Modron March and Dead Gods for Planescape. The metaplot of the Prism Pentad in Dark Sun. And so on.

All kinds of elements that include sequential events rather than just a starting scenario.

Again, perhaps this escaped your notice, but it’s very true.

I plan out connected events that span 3rd(because we don't start at 1st) to 16-20th level. I don't detail them as much as an adventure path, though, and the group can generally step off at any time they like.

Right. But that means you have a strong idea of what the story of the whole campaign will be. You're loosely plotting 18 levels of play before the game starts. Granted, you’re keeping it loose and you seem willing to allow things to change, but I think it’s a good indicator of who is the primary driver of the fiction in the game.

And that’s not a criticism. I ran plenty of games that do this, and I still do. It can be a lot of fun if that’s what the group is into.

Everyone, including me, tosses 3 ideas into the middle of the table on pieces of paper. Then we open them and all 18 ideas are written down in on sheets of paper and each of us can veto a single idea that we dislike. That leaves us with 12 themes which we each then rank from 1-12. The 3 ideas which get the most points are then discussed by the group and either the players pick one, or if they can't decide they rank the 3 ideas from 1-3 and we use the highest point total. If the final goes to a vote I will get a vote.

If that works for you guys, that’s awesome. I’d feel like it was very likely to potentially leave everyone unenthused if you’re left with a campaign consisting of everyone’s third favorite thing. But that’s just me.

They had me do it rather than the above method. Essentially I came up with an idea myself and just enacted it. It doesn't happen often, but sometimes they don't want to pick the theme.

Right, but was it really all that different? I mean, in this instance you kind of came up with the theme or premise yourself and then crafted some stuff for that. But typically you’d take the theme and premise selected by your voting process and then craft some stuff for that.

I use the Forgotten Realms, so the Pirate Isles existed in the south along the Sword Coast prior to their decision, but I had nothing prepared. It took them a while to make their way south, so I had time to make some preparations in response to what they did. If in the middle of being pirates they got bored with it and wanted to do something else, then they could do that.

I react to their decisions.

So you had a starting point and basically made them travel from there to the pirate area and used that travel time to buy some time to have piratey stuff ready to go by the time the characters made it there?

At that point it was, since the players bowed out of it. I determined how the rest of the world was dealing with it(badly) and rumors were heard by the PCs. Had they remained, the story would have been a mutual thing with me reacting to the players. I've had huge portions of prep voided by what they do and had to prep differently, even with the original theme due to what the players do.

Why not just abandon the stuff if the players weren’t interested?

Randomly. I figured out odds and then rolled for it. Solo play isn't my thing, so I wasn't going to play it out.
It didn't matter what I wanted. The world is the world. Events are events. And rumors are rumors. This event was a very major one that would eventually touch most of the Realms, so there was no way it wasn't going to come up at least in rumors. My desires had nothing to do with it.

I don’t see how that’s possible. You’re in charge. You can make something matter and bring it into focus or you can allow it to fade away. The world doesn’t have a will of it’s own.

I mean, if it wasn’t something you desired and the players had already indicated they weren’t interested, why have it continue to be an element in the game?

One of the advantages of a DM led game is that it gives considerable control to the DM.

 

[Maxperson]

Right. But that means you have a strong idea of what the story of the whole campaign will be. You're loosely plotting 18 levels of play before the game starts. Granted, you’re keeping it loose and you seem willing to allow things to change, but I think it’s a good indicator of who is the primary driver of the fiction in the game.

And that’s not a criticism. I ran plenty of games that do this, and I still do. It can be a lot of fun if that’s what the group is into.

Super loose. Just a vague idea, really. I don't plan things out more than 2 sessions in advance of game day, because things can change to drastically for my prep to be relevant much beyond that point.

If that works for you guys, that’s awesome. I’d feel like it was very likely to potentially leave everyone unenthused if you’re left with a campaign consisting of everyone’s third favorite thing. But that’s just me.

I think you underestimate the value in the top choices. It's not, "Aw, man! Third choice again?!", but rather, "We love all of these choices, so any of them is going to be a blast." Great ideas get chopped because they were 5th, 6th or even 10th.

Right, but was it really all that different? I mean, in this instance you kind of came up with the theme or premise yourself and then crafted some stuff for that. But typically you’d take the theme and premise selected by your voting process and then craft some stuff for that.

It was different only in the sense that I was the only one in the group who came up with the idea and knew what the theme was prior to the start of play.

So you had a starting point and basically made them travel from there to the pirate area and used that travel time to buy some time to have piratey stuff ready to go by the time the characters made it there?

I didn't "make" them do anything. They were in Waterdeep and they decided to travel to the Pirate Isles at 3rd level. It's a long trip, so it did give me time to come up with some ideas. My ideas are very, very loose, though. I end up improvising probably 70%-90% of the game since I don't have anywhere near the same amount of time to work on the game as I used to before I became a family man.

Why not just abandon the stuff if the players weren’t interested?

Because realistic worlds don't work that way. Realistic worlds extend beyond just what the PCs can see and interact with. The world would become 2 dimensional and flat if events that were in motion just stopped because the PCs metaphorically closed their eyes.

I don’t see how that’s possible. You’re in charge. You can make something matter and bring it into focus or you can allow it to fade away. The world doesn’t have a will of it’s own.

Nope. It was set to progress over a length of time and without the PCs it went a lot worse than if they had been involved. I would be untrue to the game world if I just stopped it cold because they looked in another direction.