D&D General What is player agency to you?

[Campbell]

@FrogReaver

When it comes to all the dimensions of agency, I have outlined I think GM methodology/expectations/accountability (which I include as part of system) are far and away the most determinant factors. It's not just your in-fiction autonomy that matters, but also what you are free and encouraged to have your character do that matters. It's not just the things you could theoretically impact, but the actual process of action declaration to change in the resultant fiction that matters. If the GM is playing NPCs or making rulings with regard to their own desired outcomes there can be no real ability to cause irrevocable change to the setting. Skill at playing the game and/or fiction effectively cease to matter.

Content/Thematic Influence is about a player's ability to dictate the sorts of scenarios and the stakes of those scenarios outside of character action, usually as part of game setup or character creation. In Legend of 5 Rings 5e for instance part of character creation involves a player describing who their character's lord is, what their duty to their lord is and an overwhelming personal desire that conflicts with their duty. It then becomes part of the GM's responsibility to make the character's lord and that juxtaposition between duty and desire part of their scenario designs.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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

Yeah, I have to admit, 2e didn't do much for me. It wasn't really a true refactoring of the rules, so it didn't solve any issues with 1e, and yet it did away with some things that were kind of nice about 1e, which was at least pretty focused on a specific sort of play (even if it wasn't often played that way). I did like the 2e classes better, and I liked the way Dragon's and Demons and Devils were actually outright scary (I mean, 1e higher power demons were pretty nasty, if you didn't get the jump on them, but 1e dragons were a bit lacking).

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

This is a factor I don't think people who don't run sandbox living worlds understand. For us, the imaginary world the PC are experiencing simply ceases to feel plausible if nothing matters unless it directly involves the PCs. It is essential to our enjoyment for life to go on for everyone else too.

 

[Umbran]

There's no one true wayism there.

Statements to the effect of, "that was not how it was traditionally played," implies the claim that there was a way it was traditionally played.

I think that there's an argument that "Trad" falls to Hickmanlike play specifically because before around 1984, we don't have great documentation for singular playstyles dominating play.

I didn't say it was the only way to play, but the way the books tell people to play and teach them to play is not the Hickman Revolution.

The 1e game books told us to use weapon vs armor type too, but that seems to have been widely ignored. We laud the common homebrewing from that era, even. In a game supposedly rife with people deviating from the books, and figuring things out without looking at the books, the way the books told us how to play should not be considered authoritative on how we did play.

Not that non-Hickman play wasn't common. Just pushing back on the idea that there was clearly one "the traditional" way we played.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

Then what’s the point of plotting out level 3 to 16-20?

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.

Right, so largely the same process without the voting.

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.

Was there some amount of play that happened in Waterdeep? Why was that the starting location? Why play out the travel? If the players want to be pirates, why not start with that?

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.

But it’s all made up. And beyond the sight of the PCs. Whatever it was, you could create reasons that it was resolved. Or that its influence didn’t reach them in the Pirate Isles.

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.

Right. So you place fidelity to your creation as the DM over the desire of your players.

That’s what this is. You can try and reframe it in some way, but I don’t see how this isn’t obvious.

This is a factor I don't think people who don't run sandbox living worlds understand. For us, the imaginary world the PC are experiencing simply ceases to feel plausible if nothing matters unless it directly involves the PCs. It is essential to our enjoyment for life to go on for everyone else too.

I absolutely can understand that. I played that way for many years. I’m just able to accept that doing so involved me placing the importance of play on my story, not that of the players. Which is perfectly fine… we had a blast with all of that stuff.

But I can acknowledge it as low on player agency.

 

[Maxperson]

Statements to the effect of, "that was not how it was traditionally played," implies the claim that there was a way it was traditionally played.

I think that there's an argument that "Trad" falls to Hickmanlike play specifically because before around 1984, we don't have great documentation for singular playstyles dominating play.



The 1e game books told us to use weapon vs armor type too, but that seems to have been widely ignored. We laud the common homebrewing from that era, even. In a game supposedly rife with people deviating from the books, and figuring things out without looking at the books, the way the books told us how to play should not be considered authoritative on how we did play.

Not that non-Hickman play wasn't common. Just pushing back on the idea that there was clearly one "the traditional" way we played.

A loose following of the rules written in the 1e DMG and PHB is the traditional way. While we house ruled quite a bit, the core of the game and how it was played was pretty much the same. Sure one group might have racial level limits and the next didn't, and the one over there actually used weapon vs. armor(we tried for a while but gave up), while one table over they ignored it. Those changes are fairly minor, though, while the Hickman method is a fairly major change to how the game was played.

 

[Umbran]

A loose following of the rules written in the 1e DMG and PHB is the traditional way While we house ruled quite a bit, the core of the game and how it was played was pretty much the same.

So, this is exactly what I'm pushing back on - citation, please, rather than personal assertion.

 

[Maxperson]

Then what’s the point of plotting out level 3 to 16-20?

My campaigns all go that far and I have an idea of what the end goal is going to be, but nothing is set in stone more than a few sessions out, and even that stuff isn't truly set in stone, since what the players do can change it.

Right, so largely the same process without the voting.

That's a major difference. I mean if voting was suspended for 2024 and they just announced in November who the president would be, that wouldn't be minor.

Was there some amount of play that happened in Waterdeep?

Yes. They encountered the beginning of the event and decided that they didn't want to continue on that way.

Why was that the starting location?

Because they had to start somewhere and I've never used Waterdeep before.

Why play out the travel?

Because that's how we do things in the style of game that we enjoy.

If the players want to be pirates, why not start with that?

Quite literally know one knew that prior to the very end of the first session. One player tossed that idea out and the others were on board.

But it’s all made up. And beyond the sight of the PCs. Whatever it was, you could create reasons that it was resolved. Or that its influence didn’t reach them in the Pirate Isles.

Because that would make the world seem less and nobody in the game wants that.

Right. So you place fidelity to your creation as the DM over the desire of your players.

No. Nobody said that they didn't want to hear about events happening around the world. They just said their PCs weren't going to try and stop it. There's a fairly big difference between the two.

But I can acknowledge it as low on player agency.

Except not. It's high agency because what aspect of agency that YOU value are not the ones that WE value. It SEEMS like low agency to you, but agency = agency. It's binary. You have it or you don't. Your method would not give me many options that I value, so it would SEEM like low agency to me.

 

[Maxperson]

So, this is exactly what I'm pushing back on - citation, please, rather than personal assertion.

Every old DM I can remember posting here about how they played back then has posted that they played that way. Some house rules changing or ignoring certain rules, but following the rest.

 

[hawkeyefan]

My campaigns all go that far and I have an idea of what the end goal is going to be, but nothing is set in stone more than a few sessions out, and even that stuff isn't truly set in stone, since what the players do can change it.

I realize that your players opted to change things up, and that's cool, but let's set that aside for a second. Don't you think that having an "end goal" implies a strong DM hand?

Yes. They encountered the beginning of the event and decided that they didn't want to continue on that way.

Because they had to start somewhere and I've never used Waterdeep before.

Because that's how we do things in the style of game that we enjoy.

Quite literally know one knew that prior to the very end of the first session. One player tossed that idea out and the others were on board.

Thanks for clarifying.

So, you had a story in mind, the players opted for something else (let's be pirates) and set off to do that in an existing place in the setting known for such opportunities. You had them make their way to the new area, and that allowed you to come up with some new content based on their idea.

Does that sound correct?

Because that would make the world seem less and nobody in the game wants that.

No. Nobody said that they didn't want to hear about events happening around the world. They just said their PCs weren't going to try and stop it. There's a fairly big difference between the two.

Less what? Realistic? I don't know if Forgotten Realms is all that concerned with realism. Perhaps you strive to make it more so... but as I said, you can determine all the factors... there's no need for you to be beholden to ideas that may not impact play.

I had gotten the impression that it was more than "news"... that it had an actual impact on play. Is that the case?

Except not. It's high agency because what aspect of agency that YOU value are not the ones that WE value. It SEEMS like low agency to you, but agency = agency. It's binary. You have it or you don't. Your method would not give me many options that I value, so it would SEEM like low agency to me.

No, that's silly. You allowing your players to opt out of whatever Waterdeep idea was in place and go be pirates afforded them more agency than remaining in Waterdeep.

Every old DM I can remember posting here about how they played back then has posted that they played that way. Some house rules changing or ignoring certain rules, but following the rest.

This doesn't do any work. We can all share anecdotes. You're complaining about the term used in a blog that explains its use of the term, which is clearly backed by factual data, and want people to adopt your usage because "old DMs you remember posting about it" played that way?