D&D General What is player agency to you?

[SteveC]

I doubt it is true for @Oofta, I know it is not true for me, so no, you have not. At best this is a sideshow

It says to me "my world is different than the norm from what the designers intended." And nothing is wrong with that. It's just not a reason to argue that the issue shouldn't function that way in a general sense. That's the issue for that and most of these other specific examples we've been discussing (although I don't really understand the egg one).

It's totally possible to run a great game with player agency where you can't get an audience with a noble, you just have to tell your players that's how your world works. You can extrapolate that to every other issue.

It's only when you're doing this too often that the players will have agency concerns. As with almost every problem in a game, you can solve it with communication between the players and the DM so that everyone is on the same page.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Folks are still taking that one portion of the noble background out of context of the entire background. It clearly states in the background that the player and DM need to discuss and agree on what that nobility means, I quote:

“Work with your DM to come up with an appropriate title and determine how much authority that title carries. A noble title doesn’t stand on its own—it’s connected to an entire family, and whatever title you hold, you will pass it down to your own children. Not only do you need to determine your noble title, but you should also work with the DM to describe your family and their influence on you.

Is your family old and established, or was your title only recently bestowed? How much influence do they wield, and over what area? What kind of reputation does your family have among the other aristocrats of the region? How do the common people regard them?

What’s your position in the family? Are you the heir to the head of the family? Have you already inherited the title? How do you feel about that responsibility? Or are you so far down the line of inheritance that no one cares what you do, as long as you don’t embarrass the family? How does the head of your family feel about your adventuring career? Are you in your family’s good graces, or shunned by the rest of your family?

Does your family have a coat of arms? An insignia you might wear on a signet ring? Particular colors you wear all the time? An animal you regard as a symbol of your line or even a spiritual member of the family?

These details help establish your family and your title as features of the world of the campaign.”

Unless you’ve also done this work, you’re not complying with the rule, or the background. You’re cherry picking on element, the ‘for advantage’ one, and ignoring the rest of the context, and potential limitations. You can’t handwave away actually siting the background in the game world.

Who says that work hasn’t been done?

I believe I’m the only person in this thread to offer an example of 5e play that included a character with the Noble background (Braeda, the human Diviner Wizard) who actually used the Position of Privilege feature. And the player and I had talked most of that out, and Braeda had a very clear place in our game world, as did her family.

I’ll add though, that if we had not, I’d almost certainly still allowed the feature to work when used, and would have taken the opportunity to establish some of those details on the spot.

Someone may offer some counter example… but don’t expect it’s likely. Folks prefer to offer hypotheticals. It seems most folks treat the backgrounds as a pair of skills and little more.

What? No! I'm not involved in that thread of the discussion.

Okay, I misunderstood you.

I think your post was pretty clearly an example of the kind of process that enhances player agency. It’s player facing, clear, negotiated, and agreed upon… and then the player decides if they want to proceed.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Since we are talking about the game text in the books, I thought it would be useful to find out what the DMG says about backgrounds. The most pertinent information seemed to come from the part where it talks about creating a custom background. I think that we getter a better sense of insight into how the designers thought their features should be handled in the game:

I think that the same would be true for the Noble's Position of Prestige. It's not an "I win button." Instead, its purpose is to create an opportunity for roleplaying and interacting with the world. I personally think that a chance for the characters to roleplay with the nobles of the City of Brass would certainly qualify.

Yup. This is how I described them earlier in the thread. The bit you’ve quoted is them suggesting to DMs to include the elements of play that the players have chosen. Use their backgrounds and the other decisions they’ve made as material to draw on for the adventures in the game. Have a noble? Come up with some entanglements that make the noble’s life difficult. Have a criminal? Make his contact call on him for aid.

Don’t just say “oh okay, you get these skills and this tool” and then proceed with your pre-written material and ignore backgrounds for the rest of the campaign. Actively work these things into play. Then the decisions the players have will have mattered… they’ll have helped determine what happens in play.

 

[FrogReaver]

Someone may offer some counter example… but don’t expect it’s likely. Folks prefer to offer hypotheticals. It seems most folks treat the backgrounds as a pair of skills and little more.

Hypotheticals are counter examples!

 

[Oofta]

It says to me "my world is different than the norm from what the designers intended." And nothing is wrong with that. It's just not a reason to argue that the issue shouldn't function that way in a general sense. That's the issue for that and most of these other specific examples we've been discussing (although I don't really understand the egg one).

It's totally possible to run a great game with player agency where you can't get an audience with a noble, you just have to tell your players that's how your world works. You can extrapolate that to every other issue.

It's only when you're doing this too often that the players will have agency concerns. As with almost every problem in a game, you can solve it with communication between the players and the DM so that everyone is on the same page.

I don't pretend to read the designer's minds. You don't know what they intended and it doesn't help to pretend that you do. The text clearly states "local nobles" along with "work with your DM" to figure out what your nobility means.

 

[Aldarc]

I don't pretend to read the designer's minds. You don't know what they intended and it doesn't help to pretend that you do. The text clearly states "local nobles" along with "work with your DM" to figure out what your nobility means.

I don't think that "local nobles" is necessarily exclusive to the nobles from the local area you hail. I have always read it as "whoever are the local nobles in this area you find yourself." Your more restrictive reading would be new for me and my players.

 

[Oofta]

I don't think that "local nobles" is necessarily exclusive to the nobles from the local area you hail. I have always read it as "whoever are the local nobles in this area you find yourself." Your more restrictive reading would be new for me and my players.

But that interpretation makes the qualifier pointless. Of course NPC nobles are local to wherever they are.

 

[Aldarc]

But that interpretation makes the qualifier pointless. Of course NPC nobles are local to wherever they are.

I genuinely don't understand how this makes the qualifier pointless. Quite the opposite from my perspective. If I travel and want to talk to the locals, it generally means that I want to talk to the locals of wherever I happen to be and not the locals of where I came from. So if I want to talk to the "local blacksmith" or the "local innkeeper" - which are both common requests by players - it's generally understood that I will talk to the ones in the settlement where I am. Likewise, if I can gain an audience with the local nobles, I and others took it to mean that you can gain an audience with the nobles where you are and not the local ones from your place of origin.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I genuinely don't understand how this makes the qualifier pointless. Quite the opposite from my perspective. If I travel and want to talk to the locals, it generally means that I want to talk to the locals of wherever I happen to be and not the locals of where I came from. So if I want to talk to the "local blacksmith" or the "local innkeeper" - which are both common requests by players - it's generally understood that I will talk to the ones in the settlement where I am. Likewise, if I can gain an audience with the local nobles, I and others took it to mean that you can gain an audience with the nobles where you are and not the local ones from your place of origin.

I can see it either way, but that's not the part of the rule I have a problem with.

 

[mamba]

I can see it either way, but that's not the part of the rule I have a problem with.

I can see it either way, but the 'get an audience everywhere' result of one of the two makes me think it is not the intended one. At a minimum it most definitely is not the one I will use.