D&D General What is player agency to you?

[Mort]

Fairly certain @Oofta agrees with my question.

Great, I'm sure he can answer for himself if he wishes.

But "more often than it doesn't" isn't quite right. Even if the feature doesn't work a decent percentage of the time (but more than 50%) that, for me is still WAY too much.

For me, the feature being sidelined should be a blue moon exception and the event of it NOT working be unusual enough that the PCs investigate the situation.

 

[Oofta]

I wanted to take a moment to address this because I think it's very illustrative of different expectations about agency.

If I'm running part of the game in the Underdark, I have to decide what my goal is here. The Underdark is one of those amazing parts of the D&D world that's dangerous, scary, and filled with wonder. What do I want to do there? Am I going to run a bunch of encounters where I describe what's happening and then move to "roll for initiative!" Yeah, some of them are going to be like that. Unintelligent monsters, horrors live there and it's very dangerous. I want to establish that. I hear there's a fat red dragon down there.

And at the same time, there are intelligent factions, drow, duergar, mind flayers ... you name it. All of them are vying for power and control. And here we have a group of powerful outsiders (we know they're powerful because they aren't dead from the horrible monsters yet). This is an opportunity to have some outsiders do my dirty work for me and get rid of an enemy faction while keeping my hands clean. And at this point, I'm thinking of the movie Yojimbo here.

The fact that one of the characters is a criminal who has contacts everywhere gives me the perfect opportunity as the GM to introduce a high-stakes diplomacy element to the game. Sure the dark elves have heard of that criminal faction! What a perfect opportunity for them. Sure we'll help with supplies and information, but you need to do something for us in return.

What this does is link the characters to the larger world. It makes them feel like they are a part of something bigger.

That was one suggestion that I thought of about how to handle a criminal background in the Underdark. There are many others. Maybe the creatures want to use that surface level criminal syndicate to have connections on the surface for nefarious purposes. Or countless others.

Those are ideas as to why the character's ability might make sense to use in terms of the game, and they would turn things into more negotiation, diplomacy, and hard choices (do we really want to help out a group of drow slavers?) It gives the players a feeling that their choice to be a criminal mattered, and that's agency in a nutshell to me. That's a different game than "you enter a cavern, there are a party of duergar there, roll for initiative!" Which is better? I'm not willing to say objectively better (and my 2023 motto is "don't yuck in someone's yum") but I know which one I'd prefer.

If I were to have a longer term story arc in the underdark and expect the PCs to survive they would eventually have to find a way to have relationships with the locals.

But another scenario. Let's say you find yourself on a remote island because you were shipwrecked. If there are natives, friendly or not, they can't get off the island any more than you. I have a "prison island" in my campaign - escaping the island was a major task, considered impossible by every inhabitant. The PCs only got out because of a loophole. Virtually no one escapes the island. The whole point of the island is that you can't get out. There are no guards to bribe, no communication to the outside world at all. There is literally no way to contact anyone, much less your criminal contact.

The world needs to make logical sense to me as DM. Sometimes that limits options, especially things that are supposed to be minor benefits from backgrounds.

 

[Oofta]

Great, I'm sure he can answer for himself if he wishes.

But "more often than it doesn't" isn't quite right. Even if the feature doesn't work a decent percentage of the time (but more than 50%) that, for me is still WAY too much.

For me, the feature being sidelined should be a blue moon exception and the event of it NOT working be unusual enough that the PCs investigate the situation.

It just depends on the feature and where they are. World building logic trumps minor benefits from backgrounds.

 

[The Grinning Frog]

Player agency = player character actions make a difference (for good or ill)

I thought that was fairly obvious? Although, maybe there are depths I haven't considered. I will say, it sounds like you have broader issues than 'player agency'. The communication between you and the players seems - stifled? When they say 'we don't have enough player agency' have you asked them what they mean by this? It might be a helpful conversation to have.

Also, do they know that your style of playing is related to roleplaying, and not just combat? Again, something that might be useful to discuss.

 

[Oofta]

I absolutely agree with what you wrote here, and it really does get to the heart of agency for me. If a player has an ability like you're describing, I would absolutely expect it to function in the City of Brass or on Olympus or pretty much every other realm. Maybe that's because I'm reading fairy tales and mythological stories to my daughter, but the social dynamics of the "real world" do seem to be reflected in higher planes.

Beyond that: it's a character taking some initiative to turn the game session in terms of their character's background, and that's something I want to encourage. Beyond even that: it's going to make for an exciting encounter that the players might be talking about years later. It's going to make for a more interesting game than: no, you can't do that. Go back to what the adventure is telling you to do next.

I can't imagine a GM who wouldn't be chomping at the bit to make the character's lives more interesting and dangerous with such an experience. Especially if most of the group has neglected social skills and graces. It could make for a very interesting experience indeed.

Just saying "no" is a cop out. At the very least, I'd give the player a skill check in situations like this where you could determine if they could proceed or not. And not at some insane super-human difficulty level either, that's just masking saying "no."

We're not at the level of Fate or PbtA here, we're just letting a character make the game more interesting and wonderous by using one of their character's abilities. Now I would argue that introducing some of the elements from those games into D&D makes it better, but it also makes it a different game, which is not to everyone's tastes.

World building logic trumps what are supposed to be minor story telling benefits from backgrounds. If it logically makes no sense, I'm not going to break that sense of the campaign world being real-ish by giving people a mystical override to accomplish something that is just not reasonable. I also interpret "You can secure an audience with a local noble if you need to." as local to wherever you hold your title. Because that actually makes sense to me.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't find these claims plausible. I've read lots of posts and discussions - mostly pertaining to 3E/PF - about issues with using undead-heavy scenarios when a player is a rogue, about issues around blocking certain sorts of spell approaches, etc.

How does the GM force the players to follow whatever it is that they've prepped?

Through illusionism, mostly. Every path leads to the same destination.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't find these claims plausible. I've read lots of posts and discussions - mostly pertaining to 3E/PF - about issues with using undead-heavy scenarios when a player is a rogue, about issues around blocking certain sorts of spell approaches, etc.

My personal experience follows @FrogReaver's opinion. I've never seen anyone bat an eyelash at a unique environment where there are limitations. An entire campaign that invalidates a class being played, like you are describing above? Sure. That's apples and oranges to a limited environment, though.

How does the GM force the players to follow whatever it is that they've prepped?

By railroading!

Players: Okay, we go back the way we came since we don't want to face the dragon in the next room.
DM: When you turn around you discover that the passageway you entered from is gone. There's no going back.
Players: So the only way out is past the dragon?
DM: Yes.

 

[Micah Sweet]

When we ask “it is better?” we’re definitely in the realm of opinion, but I think there are definite benefits to giving some authorial control to players.
1. Lightens the cognitive load on the DM from having to create everything;
2. Reminds the players that they are also responsible for the fun at the table;
3. Allows the players to be more invested in the world around them, that they had a hand in creating.
4. Encourage people to DM who might otherwise be daunted by having to be responsible for everything;
5. Players having more authority to shape elements of the game to interest them, instead of the DM having to guess.

I’m sure that the other posters who enjoy exercising some authorial power can give examples of other benefits.

All the posters here have played in multiple games in which authorial intent resides solely on the GM. Meanwhile, it seems that most of the posters who want authorial intent to reside solely with the GM have never played in such a game and don’t want to try.



It’s always a single person making the determination. In one case, it’s the DM. In the other it’s a player.

So let me turn that around for you: in the case the DM states it’s a merchant ship, it remains a merchant ship, regardless of whether all the other players may have preferred it to be a pirate ship.

I've played several PbtA games, and a bit of FATE as well. Enough to know that they do not appeal to me, and I don't want any more fictional authority as a player than the traditional D&D experience (expressed primarily through the TSR editions) gives me. From what I've heard of other games like BW and BitD, I would like them even less.

 

[mamba]

When the exception swallows the rule - It's the rule not the exception

We started talking about one audience being denied, that very much is the exception, and that still is what I am focusing on. I agree that 'you get no audience anywhere except in your local neighborhood' (interpretation of local that recently popped up) would be a lot more frequent and worth being clarified in session 0.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Would you agree that all their agency to alter the world is subject to a GM veto? (Beyond just dialogue and direct action declarations)

Provide an example of what you mean here? How are they trying to alter the world?