D&D General What is player agency to you?

[Maxperson]

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?

No. There's a reason why I keep using the word "idea" and not "goal." I have no goal. There's nothing that I want to happen. I just have an idea of what might happen

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.

Yep. I react to what they choose very often. I'd estimate that about 2/3 of the time they want to go for one of the hooks I've prepared and the other 1/3 of the time they decide to go off in another direction and I have to react to what they do. Usually they don't go completely AWOL from the theme, but the themes are pretty wide and they do things that they think of or want to do within the theme a lot.

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.

Yes. Less realistic. Realism is not binary. It's a sliding scale and the Realms exists on that scale just like every other setting. It can be more or less realistic depending on how the DM runs it.

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

It was a bit more. In the first session that had made a friend who was involved in the event. The friend contacted them and said that she knew that they didn't want to be involved, but asked for a favor. Behind the scenes a random roll had determined that there was literally no one else that could stop what was happening. She didn't tell that to the PCs, but that's why she asked. They could have said no and I was actually expecting them to say no. Instead they jumped on it since it was just a one time favor and she was paying well.

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.

No. They chose to go and could have chosen to remain. Both are valid choices and they didn't show MORE agency by going south. They simply made a different choice that had meaning to them. Choice without meaning isn't agency.

 

[pemerton]

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 think I understand it fine.

You as GM enjoy imagining things that you don't share with the players. And you enjoy imagining some of that stuff as backstory, or the "true" in-setting explanation for, things you tell the players.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think I understand it fine.

You as GM enjoy imagining things that you don't share with the players. And you enjoy imagining some of that stuff as backstory, or the "true" in-setting explanation for, things you tell the players.

I do enjoy those things, and the players appreciate them too.

 

[pemerton]

I do enjoy those things, and the players appreciate them too.

Does this mean that at some stage you reveal the stuff you imagined to your players?

Or do you mean that your players enjoy knowing that you are imagining backstory and in-setting explanations for what you tell them, even if they don't know what that stuff is that you are imagning?

 

[gban007]

Does this mean that at some stage you reveal the stuff you imagined to your players?

Or do you mean that your players enjoy knowing that you are imagining backstory and in-setting explanations for what you tell them, even if they don't know what that stuff is that you are imagning?

When I used to run sandbox games, it was a bit of both - enjoying the reveal of certain things, and enjoying the output of the imagination, even if I only divulged the outcomes of what I imagined, or kept the motives for NPC actions hidden, they enjoyed the experience of seeing it in action.
One memorable NPC I had that the characters came to despise, but the players enjoyed encountering, I knew in my head what the character was going for - the players never did, but learnt enough from his actions to know they didn't want him to achieve whatever he was trying to achieve, and would try to kill him where can, or get him to entrap himself where in more civilised settings, was certainly interesting when they put a zone of truth up over him, and him trying to be truthful but hide his true intent, for one reason or another he couldn't sway the characters to his cause that day.

 

[pemerton]

@gban007, thanks for the reply!

I want to try and give a general, slightly abstract, description of the technique you're describing, and I wonder if you think it's accurate: the stuff that the GM is imagining but not revealing helps the GM coordinate what it is that they do reveal to the players in play.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

No. They chose to go and could have chosen to remain. Both are valid choices and they didn't show MORE agency by going south. They simply made a different choice that had meaning to them. Choice without meaning isn't agency.

Huh? Did the choice have meaning or not? See this is why 'meaning' isn't a good measure, whereas 'effectivity' is much stronger. I seem to recall a definition of agency earlier that was 2 parts; were the choices consequential, and were they informed.

Here I think you're trying to say that the choice wasn't informed. The players could not gauge the outcomes of each choice. I don't think ultimate or long-term outcomes are the best measure here, necessarily. Otherwise nobody can ever be said to have agency except trivially!

It's enough that the PCs choice to be pirates was a conscious design, and that it was realizable.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

@gban007, thanks for the reply!

I want to try and give a general, slightly abstract, description of the technique you're describing, and I wonder if you think it's accurate: the stuff that the GM is imagining but not revealing helps the GM coordinate what it is that they do reveal to the players in play.

IMHO this is about the strongest argument that can be made for 'hidden facts', though it is probably about to be put to a detailed analysis

 

[Micah Sweet]

Does this mean that at some stage you reveal the stuff you imagined to your players?

Or do you mean that your players enjoy knowing that you are imagining backstory and in-setting explanations for what you tell them, even if they don't know what that stuff is that you are imagning?

When the PCs have an in-universe reason to know something they can know it. Just like real life.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

When the PCs have an in-universe reason to know something they can know it. Just like real life.

If I want to know something in real life, I'm generally not constrained by needing to have a reason to know it. I'm constrained by my ability to learn it, either physically or intellectually or through opportunity or availability, but my reasons can be anything. I could misrepresent them. And they aren't really subject to external approval. (At least so far as I know -- I suppose there could be a big old DM in the sky, who's like, "Ah, that's not good enough, man. You'll never know how ASoIaF ends.") Do you just mean that they need to be capable personally and situationally to learn something or are there other circumstances that come into play? Conceptually, I've never approached things in a game in this way, so I'm genuinely curious.