D&D General What is player agency to you?

[Oofta]

My theory is that adding more dimensions doesn’t increase overall agency. If you had agency due to dimension 1 then by adding agency in dimension 2 you still have agency. Even if you you removed all agency from dimension 3 then you still have agency due to dimension 1 and dimension 2.

That is, as long as you have agency in one dimension then you have agency.

I guess the question I have for you is, if agency is having your choices matter then what is actually meant by more agency?

Another question is how much agency do people want, and how much agency is beneficial? You could maximize agency by just having every player write a story about what their PC does. Wouldn't really be a game, but with no constraints whatsoever it seems to maximize agency.

In other words, even if people agree on how to calculate amounts of agency then there also has to be a discussion of whether more agency, however measured, is always a good thing.

 

[FrogReaver]

Another question is how much agency do people want, and how much agency is beneficial? You could maximize agency by just having every player write a story about what their PC does. Wouldn't really be a game, but with no constraints whatsoever it seems to maximize agency.

In other words, even if people agree on how to calculate amounts of agency then there also has to be a discussion of whether more agency, however measured, is always a good thing.

If that’s actually determined to be more agency. I’d dispute that.

If agency is about making meaningful choices, then these are the obvious questions -
Does more choices that are meaningful imply more agency? I don’t think thats necessarily true.

Do choices that are more meaningful imply more agency (and who determines meaningfulness)? I don’t think that’s true either.

What most people seem to mean when they talk more agency is either more choices or grander choices. But I think whether you are writing a novel (every choice over everything) or playing a pc in a d&d game, that both activities grant you the same amount of agency - because fundamentally agency isn’t about the number or grandness of meaningful choices - it’s about whether you have meaningful choices.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Another question is how much agency do people want, and how much agency is beneficial? You could maximize agency by just having every player write a story about what their PC does. Wouldn't really be a game, but with no constraints whatsoever it seems to maximize agency.

In other words, even if people agree on how to calculate amounts of agency then there also has to be a discussion of whether more agency, however measured, is always a good thing.

If it's not a game, then how can there be player agency?

 

[FrogReaver]

If it's not a game, then how can there be player agency?

Forest, meet trees!

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

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.

Right here feels like a reason games grind to halts. It's okay to have that gaming style, but not every player wants to play this way.

You are not opposition. You are the world. I agree a problem is players who don't take notes or want to just coast, but by the same time, I have been at plenty of tables with 'factual' GMs who don't actively withhold information, but since they don't consider certain details to be relevant, don't share them - like if it's possible during the fight to jump up on the chandelier to the rafters to start sniping down into the melee. They don't consider that, so it's not in the description of the room, so options are taken away.

Since it sounds like you're an Old Skool DM(tm) type, if I, as an outsider, had to guess about this Agency situation, I'd put money on your adventures are linear. There is a correct decision for how to approach roleplaying situations, the dungeons all funnel into the boss fight at the end - that has been how adventures have been designed and published since I started in '82, and before that even. I think the best idea for 'rails' and player agency came from Brennan Lee Mulligan - the only rails he designs are the character ideas that the players gave him.

It's entirely possible you and your players are not right for each others styles, and need to go seperate ways. It doesn't sound like you're enjoying running for these people. To quote Matt Colville - there are no bad players, there are just players who are right for a different table.

 

[Oofta]

So I gave my definition for agency way up above. That most of the time people can make informed decisions based on what their PCs know. The deeds and actions (or lack therein) has an impact on the fictional world they reside in. That is kind of a minimum for player agency to me. For many published modules, this is likely the only level of agency that players really have, The PCs have to stop Tiamat from rising, it's established at the beginning that if you want to escape Ravenloft eventually you have to take on Strahd.

Next, we can add more agency depending on style of game in that the players decide what goals they are going to pursue in that fictional world. Do they even care about that dragon that might destroy the city? Do they want to join the people fleeing the city and strike out for new territories? Who do they align with, who do they help or ignore? Those are all things that can happen in my games.

Next step? Do you allow the PCs to do literally anything in that world, even if it includes murder, mayhem along with all sorts of evil acts? I draw the line there because I wouldn't enjoy running that game and I know that at least one of my players wouldn't want to participate.

Some people want even more agency than that where the players add significant lore to the world or change the world outside the influence of their characters. This isn't a traditional aspect of D&D for most people, it is standard for games based on Powered by the Apocalypse.

The next logical step to me, which isn't really a game IMHO, would be that the players just do whatever they want with no restrictions whatsoever. It's story time, perhaps a collaborative story, but a story nonetheless.

What level of agency works is up to the group. Right now I'm playing Curse of Strahd. I know that if I want my PC to survive I'm going to be taking on the Dracula wannabe at some point. But we still get to decide where to go and what to pursue, I'm still having fun playing the game.

Oh, and of course I'm sure there a a lot of nuances and variations of what I've outlined.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Another question is how much agency do people want, and how much agency is beneficial? You could maximize agency by just having every player write a story about what their PC does. Wouldn't really be a game, but with no constraints whatsoever it seems to maximize agency.

In other words, even if people agree on how to calculate amounts of agency then there also has to be a discussion of whether more agency, however measured, is always a good thing.

On the one hand, I do see your point, limits are important. But on the other...I mean, it seems pretty obvious where the limits are to me. As you say, it still needs to be a game. Above, I referenced the importance of the "game" in RPG--it's why I think rules are important and get pretty frustrated when people treat them as exclusively an onerous burden to be jettisoned to the maximum extent they can.

 

[FrogReaver]

So I gave my definition for agency way up above. That most of the time people can make informed decisions based on what their PCs know. The deeds and actions (or lack therein) has an impact on the fictional world they reside in. That is kind of a minimum for player agency to me. For many published modules, this is likely the only level of agency that players really have, The PCs have to stop Tiamat from rising, it's established at the beginning that if you want to escape Ravenloft eventually you have to take on Strahd.

Next, we can add more agency depending on style of game in that the players decide what goals they are going to pursue in that fictional world. Do they even care about that dragon that might destroy the city? Do they want to join the people fleeing the city and strike out for new territories? Who do they align with, who do they help or ignore? Those are all things that can happen in my games.

Next step? Do you allow the PCs to do literally anything in that world, even if it includes murder, mayhem along with all sorts of evil acts? I draw the line there because I wouldn't enjoy running that game and I know that at least one of my players wouldn't want to participate.

Some people want even more agency than that where the players add significant lore to the world or change the world outside the influence of their characters. This isn't a traditional aspect of D&D for most people, it is standard for games based on Powered by the Apocalypse.

The next logical step to me, which isn't really a game IMHO, would be that the players just do whatever they want with no restrictions whatsoever. It's story time, perhaps a collaborative story, but a story nonetheless.

What level of agency works is up to the group. Right now I'm playing Curse of Strahd. I know that if I want my PC to survive I'm going to be taking on the Dracula wannabe at some point. But we still get to decide where to go and what to pursue, I'm still having fun playing the game.

Oh, and of course I'm sure there a a lot of nuances and variations of what I've outlined.

Out of curiosity, why do you say some of those activities are more agency?

 

[Oofta]

Out of curiosity, why do you say some of those activities are more agency?

Agency is about control of what you do and the world around you. So I see it as an additive thing. If all decisions are made without any logical reason to choose one over another, if you may as well flip a coin, there's no real agency to me. Then it kind of just goes from there. Can the words and deeds of your character have an impact? How much? Can the player change the game outside of their character seems to be even more agency.

At least that's how I would define it. I'm sure someone somewhere has written a book on it somewhere.

 

[jmartkdr2]

If that’s actually determined to be more agency. I’d dispute that.

If agency is about making meaningful choices, then these are the obvious questions -
Does more choices that are meaningful imply more agency? I don’t think thats necessarily true.

Do choices that are more meaningful imply more agency (and who determines meaningfulness)? I don’t think that’s true either.

What most people seem to mean when they talk more agency is either more choices or grander choices. But I think whether you are writing a novel (every choice over everything) or playing a pc in a d&d game, that both activities grant you the same amount of agency - because fundamentally agency isn’t about the number or grandness of meaningful choices - it’s about whether you have meaningful choices.

I'd relate this to a sufficiency model of some kind - we as players want and expect a certain amount of agency. The amount is well below absolute but above zero; each of us has our own minimum.

But I would posit that once you have enough, more doesn't make the game more fun. Definitely not at a one-to-one ration. 20% agency isn't twice as fun as 10% agency. If 15% is your personal minimum, it'll feel to you that 20% "is fun" and 10% "is not fun." Heck, if you were given 45% agency you'd probably feel overwhelmed.

GM agency is a whole other thing, because in most games it's essentially set at 100% (you're allowed to change the rules mid-game) and the rub is whether that authority/agency is used well.