D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Bedrockgames]

I think that when a game only allows player agency in the form of character autonomy, it makes more sense to see it that way. I mean, if you decide to go against Strahd, there’s a chance you’ll be charmed. You’re making an informed choice to face him and risk being charmed. So is that really a loss of agency if it happens? Not really.

It isn't a colloquialism, it is what the word means in the hobby. Dismissing common use as colloquialism doesn't strike me as a good argument at all.

Yes, if Strahd charms you, you have lost agency. But it is also a moment that shows how complex agency in a game can be, because the thing that lead you there, at least in part, was your agency .

But…in most games, a player isn’t generally putting their character conception on the line… that’s not what play is about. Any such loss of control is generally lamp-shaded as magic. This way, when the character shows fear of the dragon, we know it’s not because he’s not brave… he’s being influenced by some supernatural quality of the creature. Don’t worry everyone… Sir Felgar isn’t actually a coward!

I don't even think this is true. Dragon Awe is a thing. Fear and Horror effects are common in lots of RPGs. I even said I quite like them. But you do hear players complain about agency around them.

And again, if games want to explore these aspects of a character's internal world, I am fine with that. I have no objection. I am just pointing out that loss of control of thoughts or actions would seem to be a baseline definition of agency. I think your not seeing this, shows how overly specialized the defitnion you are using has become

But in a game where players ARE doing that…where they are putting their conception ofthe character on the line… then I think it’s different.

I agree, which is why I said there also needs to be room to talk about how agency shifts in the context of different games with different aims. I said a while back, I can see how in certain games this wouldnt' really raise a true agency concern

It’s an expectation of play. And it’s offset by the fact that the player has more say, beyond their character’s actions, in what play is about. They make choices during character creation that the GM is actively supposed to use in play. Not optionally… not at their discretion… they are what play is meant to be about.

Sure I get that. But you are momentarily losing control of your character. I don't think that makes it a low agency game at all. I just think it his odd to say control of a characters thoughts and actions have nothing to do with agency, it is only about game play, seems like a weird way to talk about agency. But like I said, in the context of different games, that momentary loss might even be in the service of agency, because agency can be a balance of many considerations.

 

[TwoSix]

In terms of diminishment: you are. This all arose over a claim that sandboxes, which most people consider a pretty maximal agency style, was really not so. And it comes in a conversation where people are trying to frame sandbox as a gm driven style of play (and being contrasted with styles and systems like BW or PbtA). Throughout this discussion you have consistently been trying to deduct agency from sandbox play and criticizing our framing of sandbox. At the same time, I have been very accepting of your claims about BW and BitD or PbtA, and also very inclusive about saying systems like that can still be sandboxes in my opinion.

Stating "you don't have as much agency as you might think you have" isn't diminishing your agency; it simply makes you feel as though your agency is being diminished because your internal framework as to how play works is being challenged.

"Sandboxes have near-maximal agency within the framework of trad GM-world creation play" is something I would generally agree with. The social contract of sandbox play allows for more in-fiction agency than one where the table agrees to run through module X.

"Sandbox play has near maximal agency for TTRPGs" is something I'm going to disagree with, because it seems to have blinders on to a lot of TTRPG play.

 

[AlViking]

Do you have a view on my question: If you are GMing 3E D&D, and a player builds a ranger with Orcs as a favoured enemy, and so that means you as GM decide to use some Orcs as NPCs, does that count as the player exercising "meta agency"?

I had that exact scenario come up a while back. I warned the player in our session 0 that there it was common knowledge that were no orcs in the region, the area was dominated by goblinoids and gnolls. I then gave him the chance to change his favored enemy based on what he was likely to face. He didn't change and never encountered a single orc.

I don't build my campaigns around specific characters. We discuss options and general themes as a group and once the campaign starts group decides on direction. Hopefully I can come up with interesting obstacles and opportunities along the way but unless they decide to travel to a region where orcs are currently a threat no orcs will appear.

 

[TwoSix]

People talk all the time about what their characters do. I say that my barbarian stabbed the orc in the face. Since neither my barbarian or the orc in question exist, it is technically incorrect to state that. I should really say that I declared an attack action for barbarian targeting the orc (no called shots in D&D, so no face-specific stab) and rolled a high enough number to exceed the orc's AC reducing the orc's hit points.

Yes. If you're describing RPG play in a more technical space like this thread, that's exactly how you should describe things. Because we're talking about real-world processes, you should explain things in real world terms.

I see no difference between that and talking about thinking of what is happening in the fictional world as determining causality and chain of events.

You should! The fictional space and play at the table are very different things. Trying to make them overlap causes confusion.

If you want to talk about the narrative events of your game, then use "in-fiction" talk. If you're talking "how to play", don't use player and character interchangeably.

It will never be perfect, it's just a GM's best attempt to think about logical consequences of ongoing events in the world and whether or not they are impacted by the influence of the characters. But that's quite a mouthful so instead it's "causal impacts".

Maybe in a technical discussion, you should rely on the mouthful instead of the shorthand. Did you think the shorthand was working for you?

 

[chaochou]

Player agency is a product of inviolable rules which a player knows and can rely on to achieve known goals. Its a product of all these things in combination.

The fact that such a definition doesn't provide a fig leaf for railroading and illusionist play makes it doubly useful, although not one which will ever gain mainstream popularity. Player agency is pretty niche in roleplaying.

 

[TwoSix]

I had that exact scenario come up a while back. I warned the player in our session 0 that there it was common knowledge that were no orcs in the region, the area was dominated by goblinoids and gnolls. I then gave him the chance to change his favored enemy based on what he was likely to face. He didn't change and never encountered a single orc.

I don't build my campaigns around specific characters. We discuss options and general themes as a group and once the campaign starts group decides on direction. Hopefully I can come up with interesting obstacles and opportunities along the way but unless they decide to travel to a region where orcs are currently a threat no orcs will appear.

Since your play seems to operate under blorb-like principles, and you communicated to the player in the metagame that his choice would be an ineffectual play, I think this is perfectly fine DMing.

If the player either choose not to believe you, or believed that expressing a part of his character's concept through that mechanic was more important than being effective, that's the player's choice.

 

[Campbell]

I think your ability to decide what your characters says and does should absolutely be considered part of agency. I also think the impact of those decisions and ability to influence or compel what other people say and do, particularly the GM, is a key part of it because we are playing a game about a shared fiction. Also, because agency is often used for a stand in for what players are allowed to expect and is often used as a cudgel when players complain about their decisions not having a real impact. I have seen it on these boards all the time and in real life during my early playing career where I would go talk to a GM in a game I was playing, and they would say something like "You have agency. You can have your character do or say anything" to a complaint of "I don't feel like my actions are having an impact on the outcome".

It's also not fundamentally fair to games that provide less autonomy but more explicit impact to player decisions.

In particular not speaking to impact on the shared fiction gives cover to GMing techniques that are at least railroad adjacent that manipulate setting and outcomes to produce a particular plot, but do not limit what you can attempt.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Stating "you don't have as much agency as you might think you have" isn't diminishing your agency; it simply makes you feel as though your agency is being diminished because your internal framework as to how play works is being challenged.

No, this isn’t just challenging how we think play works, it is actually antagonistic, something we have been trying to make clear. And it is literally requiring a redefinition of the term. I think there is a lot of room to quibble about what agency means, but the moment you assert agency doesn’t have to do with control of your character’s thoughts and actions if that loss is a product of fair game play, I think you have veered into “D&D isn’t a roleplaying game” territory of argumentation

And I am not saying he is diminishing my agency, I am saying he is treating agency as a zero sum discussion across styles: where he is building up agency in one style by taking away from the level of agency peopke think exists in another

"Sandboxes have near-maximal agency within the framework of trad GM-world creation play" is something I would generally agree with. The social contract of sandbox play allows for me in-fiction agency than one where the table agrees to run through module X.

Again, this is where context and agency matter

"Sandbox play has near maximal agency for TTRPGs" is something I'm going to disagree with, because it seems to have blinders on to a lot of TTRPG play.

Also here I am not saying that the way sandbox handles agency is going to be satisfactory to everyone. I am just saying it is a high agency form of play. We can have a conversation that includes the things you guys are talking about and try to suss out why those appeal to your sense of agency and might be called high agency for different reasons. That might be productive. Fighting over agency as an objective thing sandbox or Hawkeye’s ‘player driven’ style had more of is just going to be the discussion equivalent of smashing our heads against a red brick wall again and again.

Also you keep accusing people of having blinders and I think this is an unfair characterization. People understand that games can work differently. Many of us have played different kinds of games where control of play has a different arrangement than say D&D. Again, I mentioned Hillfolk which I know annoys people but the point is you can narrate stuff into existence in the world as part of dialogue (and there are also meta resources and other features of play that can strengthen or limit this). To me that doesn’t feel like an increase in agency because I tend to see agency more as related to my characters ability to take actions in the word not my ability as a player to control the world or the game. For me the selling point of Hillfolk is its immersive drama, not agency. That doesn’t mean it isn’t enhancing agency for someone else, for whom that stuff is very important. I think there is plenty of room to talk about that. I can see how someone might find BW or PbtA to give them greater agency because for them agency and system-game play are so intertwined. But for me these games are not increasing agency. Because to me agency has always simply meant, if I want to go north and negotiate a peace with the goblin king instead of engaging the adventure he planned in Funkytown, I can do that and he won’t obstruct me, he will even lean into it

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think your ability to decide what your characters says and does should absolutely be considered part of agency. I also think the impact of those decisions and ability to influence or compel what other people say and do, particularly the GM, is a key part of it because we are playing a game about a shared fiction. Also, because agency is often used for a stand in for what players are allowed to expect and is often used as a cudgel when players complain about their decisions not having a real impact. I have seen it on these boards all the time and in real life during my early playing career where I would go talk to a GM in a game I was playing, and they would say something like "You have agency. You can have your character do or say anything" to a complaint of "I don't feel like my actions are having an impact on the outcome".

I agree with much of what you said on. On the last point, players having agency doesn’t mean there can’t be other issues in the game, even other issues that impact a players sense of agency. Some of this could be the GM isn’t very good, some could be the system is a bad fit for you, some of it could be misaligned expectations. Those are all worth having a conversation about

It's also not fundamentally fair to games that provide less autonomy but more explicit impact to player decisions.

This is why I keep mentioning context. I think agency is nuanced and I can see that you might limit one aspect of it, to enhance another, or even enhance it overall. The only thing I am really pushing back on here is having a definition so loaded it almost excludes a sandbox from being the high agency game most people think of them as being

 

[AnotherGuy]

I had that exact scenario come up a while back. I warned the player in our session 0 that there it was common knowledge that were no orcs in the region, the area was dominated by goblinoids and gnolls. I then gave him the chance to change his favored enemy based on what he was likely to face. He didn't change and never encountered a single orc.

Out of interest did the player have a particular backstory for his selection of orcs as his ranger's favoured enemy or was it just I'm picking orcs?