D&D General What is player agency to you?

[soviet]

To clarify, no one might be saying "greater agency games are better", but a lot of people hear that anyway.

So yea, more of an extrapolation of your post, not a contradiction.

Yet the first three words of it were 'on the contrary'

 

[TwoSix]

Yet the first three words of it were 'on the contrary'

Yes, I know. I overstated that and then amended myself when you rebutted.

 

[soviet]

Yes, I know. I overstated that and then amended myself when you rebutted.

Fair enough, thank you.

 

[pemerton]

As an outside observer, the player introducing 'the Falcon's Claw' doesn't seem to really be related to the Beliefs, or if so only in the most tangential of ways.

Which Beliefs?

I would have to go back to old notes to see if I even have a record of the PC Beliefs at that point in play. So I don't quite see how you are across them!

At one stage there was a Belief about finding magic items that would help free the brother from possession by a Balrog. I don't recall to what extent that Belief had changed/developed.

it kind of seems the Falcon's Claw was established in the fiction more by player fiat than anything else.

In RPGing, I know of two ways to introduce new content: roll on a table, or have someone make something up.

Burning Wheel does not use rolling on a table. As per the quotes from the rulebook that I set out upthread, framing and consequences are deliberate, and intended to challenge player priorities and give expression to the consequences of those challenges.

So someone has to make it up.

Sometimes the GM makes it up, and incorporates it into framing, or (as the black arrows illustrate) into a consequence. But that is not the only way. The point of a mechanic like Circles, or Wises, or Scavenging - looking for people (or hoping to meet them), recalling stuff, looking for stuff - is to create a framework within which player priorities for the fiction can be given effect to.

As a player, I made a Scavenging check when Thurgon searched Evard's tower for spellbooks. At the table, who invented the idea of Evard's tower? Me, the player. How did it come into play? Via a successful Great Masters-wise check for Aramina. Who invented the idea that there would be spellbooks in the tower? Me, as part and parcel of making the Wises check in the first place (Aramina had a Belief about finding spellbooks). Who initiated the Scavenging check? Me, playing Thurgon (Aramina was Taxed to unconsciousness from an attempt to cast a spell).

And when the Scavenging check failed, who invented the letters from Xanthippe to Evard, that tended to imply that Thurgon is the grandson of a demon-summoning wizard? The GM, introducing a complication that challenges Thurgon's Beliefs and Relationships. (Very analogously to the black arrows.)

This is how the game works.

Now, upthread @Citizen Mane mentioned the passages from the rulebook that speak about "no beam weaponry in the Duke's toilet" and "no superior gear-mongering in the village". What these really are, in my view, are statements of the basic principle of the credibility check. Robin Laws says something similar in the HeroQuest revised rulebook: if the genre of the game is a western, the fact that the cowboy has a descriptor Fast 16 while the horse has Gallop 14 doesn't mean that the cowboy can outrun the horse.

Generally, if everyone is on the same page as to credibility the issue doesn't come up. If there is some uncertainty over what's credible, it can be worked out via conversation among participants. If, despite such conversation, the most interesting action declaration that a player can think of is a Scavenging check to find an unmotivated vorpal sword in a random cupboard, then - to again echo Citizen Mane - the game has gone so badly wrong that we don't need rules to shut down player agency. We need all the participants to revisit the basics - why do the PCs have no priorities? why can the GM not frame interesting scenes? why does play seem to be unfolding in complete disregard of possible consequences?

Once those issues of ethos and expectation are resolved on the part of all participants, then the allocation of roles will do its job: the GM makes stuff up as part of framing and consequence; the players introduce possibilities as part of the declaration of their Circles, Wises, Scavenging, Perception etc tests, and if those tests succeed then the possibilities are realised.

This is not the only approach to high player agency RPGing - Apocalypse World exhibits a different one - but in my experience it works pretty well.

 

[pemerton]

Player originated quests are just a suggestion in 4E, a paragraph at the end of 2 pages on quests that says (emphasis added) "[As DM] You should allow and even encourage players to come up with their own quests that are tied to their individual goals or specific circumstances in the adventure." It's "should", not "must".

Quests in 4E are just a general way of codifying story arcs and goals, details of what happens are always left up to the DM. None of this is really any different from how I've ever played D&D in any edition.

Good for you!

Now, how can it be both that (i) you do everything exactly the same as I do, following the rules in the RPGs that I enjoy (including 4e D&D) and yet (ii) you disagree with nearly everything I say about my preferred approach to the GM role, techniques for achieving player agency, etc?

It's a puzzle, that's for sure!

 

[hawkeyefan]

I can see that, but I don't have a problem with it here. The ability to force a meeting with a noble is not necessarily entirely within the PCs control, so it doesn't necessarily impact agency in a way that would bother me, on either side of the screen.

I don't see how the DM denying any player-initiated action can be anything but a removal of player agency. It's a given, no?

It's like saying I had the agency as a kid to go see R rated movies, except my parents never let me.

It makes no sense.

Because that's the dynamic established by that game, and specifically at that table. The DM makes the world, and the PCs live in it, making choices based on what they know and what they are capable of.

Other games have different dynamics. And that's fine.

Yes, it's absolutely all fine! I'm a player in a 5e game now that is radically different than how I'd run it. I get that. I also have no agency, it's basically a railroad. It is what it is.

When I run 5e, I do things a little differently in order to allow the players more agency.

Yeah, sorry, I am just not on board that it takes away anything from the player - as long as the DM has an in-game reason. Which is why I personally feel DM prep is extremely important.

That's fine! But clearly in an instance like that, you're saying DM prep is more important than player agency. Or else you'd adapt your prep to find a way to make the player's idea work.

The sailor background (I think) has a feat that they can get passage on a ship for you and your group. But really, any group? What if they are wanted for murder, does the ship (even if it is one they used to work on) still have to grant them passage? The fact that it gives caveats in the featured section simply tells the DM to try and make it happen. But sometimes, the DM's world, in order to be consistent, needs to follow some common sense.

I tend to believe that there tends to be more than one way to achieve consistency and common sense. It usually only takes a few moments to work something out.

To me, it just goes back to trusting your DM. If they say no, I assume they have a good reason and never question it as a player (and I have had it happen). It never interrupted my agency.

It did, it's just that you didn't mind. You expected it and accepted it as a part of play. And that's fine! I'm not saying that agency is inherently good or bad.

As for trust, we could just as easily say that the DM should trust their players.

I really do not care what the text says, they get an audience when it makes sense to, they might get denied when it does not. This text is not the law, it is a guideline, the setting easily trumps anything in it

Okay, then you should be comfortable saying that setting fidelity and/or DM prep is more important than player agency. I don't see how you can read your comment any other way.

And again, this is neither good nor bad.... it simply is. It's good if everyone in the group is happy playing that way, and it may be bad if everyone's not.

 

[JAMUMU]

Player Agency is thinking outside the box and the referee leaning into it.

Player Agency is when the players say "No! This will not stand!" and the referee re-tools everything around the new line drawn in the sand.

Player Agency is when the players break stuff and jump reality because they broke the last one.

Player Agency is when the referee gives the group exactly what they want, but it turns to sand in their mouths.

 

[pemerton]

that sounds like a very strict interpretation of the text you quoted. I did not see anything that said the GM cannot introduce any elements and they all have to be based on what the players mentioned

Have you read the rulebook? Have you played Burning Wheel? It's not mysterious. It's one of the most clearly-written RPG rulebooks that I know.

One of the things that it says, in the instructions to players (p 269 of Revised; the text is the same in Gold), is "If the story doesn't interest you, it's your job to create interesting situations and involve yourself". I've already identified the mechanical frameworks that the players can use to do this: Circles, Wises, Scavenging, etc.

The whole point of BW is to be, in play, basically the diametric opposite of a typical D&D adventure path. Everything in play is about challenging the player-authored priorities for their PCs, and finding out what happens as a result.

That sounds like he made it up on the fly, not something he just forgot to mention… while I agree that it is possible that he might just mention it now (credibility test), this comes pretty close to wishing a +1 sword into existence. He was just one roll away from accomplishing that

I don't know what you mean by "forgot to mention", or what that has to do with anything.

The player didn't forget to mention the Falcon's Claw - he mentioned it quite loudly and deliberately!, and shared what he envisaged its mechanical specs being, and his plans for finishing enchanting it.

And yes, he was one roll away from having his PC find it. What's the problem? Retrieving lost treasures from ruined towers is a pretty standard thing in FRPGing.

 

[pemerton]

Searching your old home for an item of both sentimental and practical value based on your detailed backstory seems in line with the general play procedures of Burning Wheel that I'm familiar with. It would be tough to say if it directly derives from the character's Beliefs as I don't believe they were explicitly stated, but assuming they revolve around the conflict with his brother, it seems pretty solid to me.

A voice of reason! Thank you.

 

[Oofta]

Good for you!

Now, how can it be both that (i) you do everything exactly the same as I do, following the rules in the RPGs that I enjoy (including 4e D&D) and yet (ii) you disagree with nearly everything I say about my preferred approach to the GM role, techniques for achieving player agency, etc?

It's a puzzle, that's for sure!

A quest is just a general goal. That's it. A player stating they want to find their father's killer and bring them to justice. It's not the player dictating anything of any particular importance. Same with wishlists. It's still a wish list. 4E was far more magic item dependent, but a DM asking players what items they want to get is hardly new.

Neither is not a radical idea, nor do they transform or really affect the game in any appreciable way. I just don't see how to do with player agency. I simply think you're simply making them out to be a bigger deal than they are, these concepts have always existed and continue to exist in D&D.