D&D General What is player agency to you?

[bloodtide]

Summertime! So most players and nearly all DMs run off for the summer at the Rec and pause or end games. Leaving some players, and no other DMs around for the summer. But players what to play. And I'm there to DM. It's not a good match, as the players are people that dislike or hate me...both inside and outside the game. And I don't care so much for them. But still they form themselves into groups and have me DM a Summertime Campaign. Four groups, three 5E and one 3.5E.

We had "session zeros", and many players said they wanted "player agency" in the games. Of course, no one could tell me what that was other then the "internet buzz words". So I got a lot of "player agency is when the player feels fully responsible for their own actions (whether they were guided or not). As long as the player feels like their hand wasn't forced, they feel like their actions in a game are their own." Or "Player agency is whenever the player performs any input to make any (informed) gameplay decision." Or "Player agency is the ability of a player to affect the course of the game."

So to me, that is all Word Salad. And without anyone having a definition with any bias in reality...we just start the games. In my Classic Old School Hard Fun Killer DM Railroad Tycoon Unfair Unbalanced Style.

So, now, six game sessions in...a couple players in each game are complaing about the "Lack of Agency" in my games. They don't "feel" like they have any "player agency", but they are not sure "why". The rest of the players are fine, or don't care.

For clarity, Two Big Things I notice:

1. I'm not a fan of the players or characters. And the big part of this for me is I don't give out advice or help to the players ever. As the DM I answer factual questions, but not "Hey, is it a good idea for my 1st level halfling bard to dive into the Pool of Deadly Lava and look for treasure?'' I know a great many fan DMs would say "No, wiat, don't do that your character will die", I am NOT one of them. So..in the wacky way: because I don't tell the players what to do...they feel they lack Agency.

2.My game is loaded with lore and information. It's one of my favorite things. Even the player that just coasts through the game will have to go through a little. But then they would have to remember things and use things in gameplay. And plenty of casual players refuse to do this. They are "forced" to listen to flavor text, but they never speak to NPCs in character or interact much with the game world. Their character walks into an inn common room and sees an open book in the fire place that is not being consumed by the flames...and they just ignore it and say "when are we going to fight something?" This comes up a lot for the "informed agency" thing. Players say they "don't know stuff", so they can't make informed decisions. My counter is the players are unwilling to role play, interact or immerse themselves in the game to learn anything. And the classic "they don't write anything down"

So again, I turn to the 'Net. What is player agency to you? What "should" a DM do? What "should" a player do?

 

[jmartkdr2]

It's not a helpful answer, but I really think it is "when the player feels in control of their character and what happens to them." Yeah, it's vague, but so are really important aspects like fun, challenge, and believability. Players want to feel like what they decide matters.

I think you may be accidentally curtailing player agency - again, the feeling of the player's choices mattering, through a lack of information. I bet you think it's obvious what will happpen if the pc's attack the orcs. But the players have played with many different dms, who would run the same encounter very differently, and they assume the character, who lives in the world, understands the basic rules. But the player doesn't, because they don't know how you will handle it. Some dm's would let them swim through lava to find treasure, some dms expect it. Some dms will force a saving throw vs massive damage, some will just kill you. I don't know you well enough to be sure how it will play out, but may character, who lives in the setting, would have an idea.

Withholding information from the player that the character would know is metagaming. The bad kind.

As for the second - that's a very specific play style. It involves a lot of memorization, potentially tedious interacting with every object in the room, and trying everything until it works. Some people find it fun - the reward of finding the solution makes all the searching worthwhile - but to others that just feels like homework.

Also, I don't know how common this is, but: I can either take notes or play the game, but I can't do both at the same time. I can't touch-type, so if I'm taking notes I'm not going to be able to listen to the dm talk for more than 30 seconds or so. I don't hear the rest because I'm focused on typing. Which means my notes are incomplete, which means they're probably useless, which means I'm better off not taking notes.

Which usually works out better because I can remember the details pretty well if I just pay attention to what's being said, which is really easy if I can see how it relates to my character. If I'm just getting an audiobook version of the Simarillion, I'm probably just going to doze off.

 

[Bacon Bits]

If I wanted to "maximize player agency" in my games, then I'd run them more in the West Marches style. You don't have to exactly replicate it, but it's kind of the quintessential ideal of maximum player agency. The drawback, of course, is that the players need to direct you more, and it sounds like that doesn't happen.

But I don't think that's what's really going on here.

To me, it feels like:

1. Your players aren't happy with the style of the game. From your description, it sounds like they're not interested in setting lore, while it's a major draw for you. That's pretty common, so I would call it unavoidable. However, it's possible that they're also just interested in collaborating more on the campaign.
2. Your players don't know what they want, or lack the language to describe what they want, or feel like asking for what they want is going to upset you.

I would recommend sitting down with some of the Session 0 tools like these just to try to work through what your players are looking for in a game. A lot of those tools are focused on safety tools, and I don't think that's what you're looking for, but there are My sense is that they're looking for something that's very beer & pretzels, combat-focused, kick-in-the-door, kill the monsters, and take their stuff style of game. Diablo but with dice.

Ideally, you can then take that and build a campaign pitch document for 2-4 different possible campaigns you could run, and then let the PCs pick one they want. Then you can quickly build a minimal world with the My Campaign one-page campaign doc. There's other similar stuff out there; I just like how straightforward MCDM's stuff is. I understand you're used to doing a lot more than this. The idea here is to force you to minimize the amount of work you have to do before the players need it. Then, when the players have a question, let them help build the world. If someone wants to worship a god of battle, let them invent it.

Finally, I would have two criticisms:

Communication is difficult, especially in a collectively imagined story, and your players seem to have a complaint about it. There's all kinds of possible less-than-ideal DMing styles, and it's difficult to say if that's what is going on because we're not at your table and your players aren't here. However, if you're going to proudly say that you're not a fan of the players and they say they feel like they can't make correct decisions, my assumption becomes that you've gone too far into DM vs player playstyle. There's a difference between hard or challenging, and punishing or mean. Either way, I do think that them saying that should be an alarm bell for you, even if your players can't articulate any examples. If your players are saying "we 'don't know stuff', and can't make informed decisions," then I think they're very clearly saying you're making it too difficult to learn about or roleplay in the game world through you, or that the game world is simply too punishing. I understand you have your own style, but my feeling is that you're frustrating players because they've been punished for misunderstanding what you were explaining. They don't trust you because you keep trapping them, and "gotcha" isn't fun.

Second, speaking in-character is something that a lot of players either aren't comfortable with or aren't interested in. It takes a lot of experience for many people to do it at all, and you shouldn't judge their ability to roleplay based on their ability to voice act.

 

[Mort]

Basically, player agency means that the Player gets to make the choices for his character.

And ideally, that the choices are meaningful rather than just surface or illusory.

1. I'm not a fan of the players or characters. And the big part of this for me is I don't give out advice or help to the players ever. As the DM I answer factual questions, but not "Hey, is it a good idea for my 1st level halfling bard to dive into the Pool of Deadly Lava and look for treasure?'' I know a great many fan DMs would say "No, wiat, don't do that your character will die", I am NOT one of them. So..in the wacky way: because I don't tell the players what to do...they feel they lack Agency.

Maybe the players are actually saying they don't have enough information to make an informed choice?

I can see them complaining about agency if they don't feel like their choices actually matter - because they don't have enough information about any given situation?

2.My game is loaded with lore and information. It's one of my favorite things. Even the player that just coasts through the game will have to go through a little. But then they would have to remember things and use things in gameplay. And plenty of casual players refuse to do this. They are "forced" to listen to flavor text, but they never speak to NPCs in character or interact much with the game world. Their character walks into an inn common room and sees an open book in the fire place that is not being consumed by the flames...and they just ignore it and say "when are we going to fight something?" This comes up a lot for the "informed agency" thing. Players say they "don't know stuff", so they can't make informed decisions. My counter is the players are unwilling to role play, interact or immerse themselves in the game to learn anything. And the classic "they don't write anything down"

Maybe they are feeling overwhelmed with information?

Or maybe they feel that their character should be able to absorb it and then they be told later. If a character is playing an Int 18 wizard with decent ranks in knowledge history, the player may feel you should tell them the relevant info when they ask (this is a playstyle issue).

So you need to be up front with them about how you expect them to retain information.

So again, I turn to the 'Net. What is player agency to you? What "should" a DM do? What "should" a player do?

There should be a meeting of the minds as to what the expectations of the table are. Here specifically what the players is expected to remember vs. what they can expect their character to know. But this isn't exactly agency - it's more a difference of playstyle.

 

[Shiroiken]

Player Agency is a weird term, but it really boils down to the player being able to make meaningful decisions that impact the game and/or world. These can be in big or small ways, but players like to know their decisions actually matter.

For an example from my first 5E campaign, a group about to face a bunch of drow casts Heroes Feast to become immune to poison, since not only are drow known to use poison, but they also are known to have spiders as pets/allies. Little did they realize that they would also face the spider avatar of Lolth, whose primary form of damage was in the form of poison. As the DM, I could have altered the damage type to keep the encounter more lethal, but I allowed their decision to severely weaken the challenge. I fully expected at least 1 PC to die in this fight, but instead no one even fell to 0 HP. The player who's idea it was to use Heroes Feast felt ecstatic in their decision.

Note that illusionism, where the DM tricks the players into thinking their decisions matter is really the antithesis of player agency, even if the players don't realize it. Their decisions are irrelevant, with the outcome having already been decided by the DM. I used to be a big fan of illusionism until I played in a game where the DM accidentally dropped the illusion. After realizing that nothing we did mattered, we found ourselves recklessly trying to get ourselves killed, just to see if we still had even that level of control (we didn't).

 

[overgeeked]

Summertime! So most players and nearly all DMs run off for the summer at the Rec and pause or end games. Leaving some players, and no other DMs around for the summer. But players what to play. And I'm there to DM. It's not a good match, as the players are people that dislike or hate me...both inside and outside the game. And I don't care so much for them. But still they form themselves into groups and have me DM a Summertime Campaign. Four groups, three 5E and one 3.5E.

Why would you run a game for people that either dislike or hate you?

We had "session zeros", and many players said they wanted "player agency" in the games. Of course, no one could tell me what that was other then the "internet buzz words". So I got a lot of "player agency is when the player feels fully responsible for their own actions (whether they were guided or not). As long as the player feels like their hand wasn't forced, they feel like their actions in a game are their own." Or "Player agency is whenever the player performs any input to make any (informed) gameplay decision." Or "Player agency is the ability of a player to affect the course of the game."

So to me, that is all Word Salad. And without anyone having a definition with any bias in reality...

So...they defined what player agency was but you think it's all "word salad"...that's not a great sign. That you think it's all "internet buzzwords" and "word salad" suggests you're not interested in players having agency in your games.

we just start the games. In my Classic Old School Hard Fun Killer DM Railroad Tycoon Unfair Unbalanced Style.

That all sounds great, except the bolded part.

1. I'm not a fan of the players or characters. And the big part of this for me is I don't give out advice or help to the players ever. As the DM I answer factual questions, but not "Hey, is it a good idea for my 1st level halfling bard to dive into the Pool of Deadly Lava and look for treasure?'' I know a great many fan DMs would say "No, wiat, don't do that your character will die", I am NOT one of them. So..in the wacky way: because I don't tell the players what to do...they feel they lack Agency.

That's probably not why the feel a lack of agency.

2.My game is loaded with lore and information. It's one of my favorite things. Even the player that just coasts through the game will have to go through a little. But then they would have to remember things and use things in gameplay. And plenty of casual players refuse to do this. They are "forced" to listen to flavor text, but they never speak to NPCs in character or interact much with the game world. Their character walks into an inn common room and sees an open book in the fire place that is not being consumed by the flames...and they just ignore it and say "when are we going to fight something?" This comes up a lot for the "informed agency" thing. Players say they "don't know stuff", so they can't make informed decisions. My counter is the players are unwilling to role play, interact or immerse themselves in the game to learn anything. And the classic "they don't write anything down"

Sounds like your players want a spoon-fed video game experience. Clearly not a great fit for you or your style.

So again, I turn to the 'Net. What is player agency to you?

At it's most basic, player agency is the players’ ability to make choices for their characters and for those choices to actually matter to the unfolding story of the game. It's really that simple.

What "should" a DM do?

1. Honestly communicate with the players and find some common ground or not play together.

2. Run games as an open-world sandbox and simply react to what the PCs do. They will always surprise you and it's only slightly more prep than trying to run a module, plus it's infinitely less stressful because you never have to try to force anything on the players.

What "should" a player do?

1. Honestly communicate with the referee and find some common ground or not play together.

2. Be proactive and engaged with the game the referee is running or stop playing.

 

[iserith]

The objections your players are voicing don't seem like what they're truly objecting to.

Based on what you're saying, I would like to know how hard it is for the players in this game to sit down to play and get to the adventure. Do they know where the adventure is and how to get to it? Lots of sandbox games suffer from what I call "quicksand box play." Where the adventure is isn't obvious and it takes forever to figure it out and get to the action, which wrecks the pace and player engagement. Not sure if that is happening here, but I have my suspicions.

 

[Clint_L]

Summertime! So most players and nearly all DMs run off for the summer at the Rec and pause or end games. Leaving some players, and no other DMs around for the summer. But players what to play. And I'm there to DM. It's not a good match, as the players are people that dislike or hate me...both inside and outside the game. And I don't care so much for them. But still they form themselves into groups and have me DM a Summertime Campaign. Four groups, three 5E and one 3.5E.

This is the weirdest dynamic. I'm not sure whether to take you seriously. If serious...I have many questions.

We had "session zeros", and many players said they wanted "player agency" in the games. Of course, no one could tell me what that was other then the "internet buzz words". So I got a lot of "player agency is when the player feels fully responsible for their own actions (whether they were guided or not). As long as the player feels like their hand wasn't forced, they feel like their actions in a game are their own." Or "Player agency is whenever the player performs any input to make any (informed) gameplay decision." Or "Player agency is the ability of a player to affect the course of the game."

So to me, that is all Word Salad. And without anyone having a definition with any bias in reality...we just start the games. In my Classic Old School Hard Fun Killer DM Railroad Tycoon Unfair Unbalanced Style.

Okay, well, maybe start by not judging. "Player agency is the ability of a player to affect the course of the game" seems like a pretty straightforward description to me, so if that is word salad to you, then how about:

1. They clearly understand the situation and the stakes (i.e. they have the information)
2. They have a realistic chance of affecting the outcome through their decisions (i.e. their choices matter)

So, now, six game sessions in...a couple players in each game are complaing about the "Lack of Agency" in my games. They don't "feel" like they have any "player agency", but they are not sure "why". The rest of the players are fine, or don't care.

For clarity, Two Big Things I notice:

1. I'm not a fan of the players or characters. And the big part of this for me is I don't give out advice or help to the players ever. As the DM I answer factual questions, but not "Hey, is it a good idea for my 1st level halfling bard to dive into the Pool of Deadly Lava and look for treasure?'' I know a great many fan DMs would say "No, wiat, don't do that your character will die", I am NOT one of them. So..in the wacky way: because I don't tell the players what to do...they feel they lack Agency.

If a player asked me that question, I would emphasize the things that would be very obvious to their character - i.e. the lava is extremely hot and looks pretty deadly. Just to make sure they understand the situation (see 1, above). Then if they want to insist in diving into lava, that's on them (see 2, above). Again, it's kind of hard to take you seriously because in my experience real people don't talk or act that way, but giving you the benefit of the doubt.

2.My game is loaded with lore and information. It's one of my favorite things. Even the player that just coasts through the game will have to go through a little. But then they would have to remember things and use things in gameplay. And plenty of casual players refuse to do this. They are "forced" to listen to flavor text, but they never speak to NPCs in character or interact much with the game world. Their character walks into an inn common room and sees an open book in the fire place that is not being consumed by the flames...and they just ignore it and say "when are we going to fight something?" This comes up a lot for the "informed agency" thing. Players say they "don't know stuff", so they can't make informed decisions. My counter is the players are unwilling to role play, interact or immerse themselves in the game to learn anything. And the classic "they don't write anything down"

So again, I turn to the 'Net. What is player agency to you? What "should" a DM do? What "should" a player do?

So, define "loaded with lore and information." Because it's your thing, so if it is "loaded with lore and information" by your standards, then it is likely overwhelming to most players who have not been in your campaign for a long time. If they are bombarded with information, it will be very hard for them to discern what is important.

If you really care about the campaign working and aren't in it just to entertain yourself, then pitch it to the level of your players. Don't make assumptions about what they should know, either about real life or how D&D stories go, and make the key stuff obvious. Like the non-burning book. Again, in my experience almost every player would catch that pretty massive hint, so if yours aren't, and this is a legit example, then there are probably a bunch of other things just as strange calling for their attention.

I work with lots of young players and I don't find it particularly challenging. I keep it simple and don't overwhelm them with information or options, so that they can understand what is going on and make meaningful choices that affect the plot. To me, that would be player agency for beginner players.

I dunno. Your stories are so extreme that it is hard to really understand what is going on. They make me wonder whether you are just trying to entertain yourself.

 

[payn]

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Summertime! So most players and nearly all DMs run off for the summer at the Rec and pause or end games. Leaving some players, and no other DMs around for the summer. But players what to play. And I'm there to DM. It's not a good match, as the players are people that dislike or hate me...both inside and outside the game. And I don't care so much for them. But still they form themselves into groups and have me DM a Summertime Campaign. Four groups, three 5E and one 3.5E.

We had "session zeros", and many players said they wanted "player agency" in the games. Of course, no one could tell me what that was other then the "internet buzz words". So I got a lot of "player agency is when the player feels fully responsible for their own actions (whether they were guided or not). As long as the player feels like their hand wasn't forced, they feel like their actions in a game are their own." Or "Player agency is whenever the player performs any input to make any (informed) gameplay decision." Or "Player agency is the ability of a player to affect the course of the game."

So to me, that is all Word Salad. And without anyone having a definition with any bias in reality...we just start the games. In my Classic Old School Hard Fun Killer DM Railroad Tycoon Unfair Unbalanced Style.

So, now, six game sessions in...a couple players in each game are complaing about the "Lack of Agency" in my games. They don't "feel" like they have any "player agency", but they are not sure "why". The rest of the players are fine, or don't care.

For clarity, Two Big Things I notice:

1. I'm not a fan of the players or characters. And the big part of this for me is I don't give out advice or help to the players ever. As the DM I answer factual questions, but not "Hey, is it a good idea for my 1st level halfling bard to dive into the Pool of Deadly Lava and look for treasure?'' I know a great many fan DMs would say "No, wiat, don't do that your character will die", I am NOT one of them. So..in the wacky way: because I don't tell the players what to do...they feel they lack Agency.

2.My game is loaded with lore and information. It's one of my favorite things. Even the player that just coasts through the game will have to go through a little. But then they would have to remember things and use things in gameplay. And plenty of casual players refuse to do this. They are "forced" to listen to flavor text, but they never speak to NPCs in character or interact much with the game world. Their character walks into an inn common room and sees an open book in the fire place that is not being consumed by the flames...and they just ignore it and say "when are we going to fight something?" This comes up a lot for the "informed agency" thing. Players say they "don't know stuff", so they can't make informed decisions. My counter is the players are unwilling to role play, interact or immerse themselves in the game to learn anything. And the classic "they don't write anything down"

So again, I turn to the 'Net. What is player agency to you? What "should" a DM do? What "should" a player do?

I think, FUNDAMENTALLY, the type of agency, PLAYER agency, revolves around being a voice in the determination of the content of the narrative, the setting of stakes when embarking on activities, and the scope and nature of those activities. 'Module Play' for example does not (generally) feature these sorts of agency to a high degree. The GM will describe a pre-developed situation and players will simply choose actions. They have no input into what the game is ABOUT. Typically players can make tactical decisions, some of which may have effectiveness over a greater scope (IE you might gain an ally, or acquire/conserve various assets depending on choices). Some of these feature path-dependency, allowing for some variation in order of play, or which encounters take place based on player choice. Typically there is a fixed end condition of 'mission success' (or failure). Most campaigns will feature several of these story arcs with potentially some glue, perhaps featuring player choice of 'module a' or 'module b'.

What IS featured in this sort of less agency play is typically hidden information which is needed to determine the stakes of different decisions, an ability to focus play on elements the player is concerned about, and a resolution process which is fundamentally not very amenable to analysis and risk/reward determination (typically with islands of combat where this is better defined, as in D&D).