D&D General What is player agency to you?

[Maxperson]

In the entire system? Yes — off the top of my head, the GM has broad discretion in setting obstacles, determining consequences, and deciding whether to allow FoRKs, helping dice, and advantage dice.

Then that's all that's really required for the possibility to game the DM. It's not a slight on the playstyle. Just an observation that essentially all RPGs involve the ability to game the DM.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yes and no, as the term "illusion" is never what we've called it. It's been more about whether to roll the dice in front or behind the screen. I've also been on the player side of these talks - and the angle was just.. different. We've focused more on what kind of setting, what system, what kind of overall narrative, etc. and not so much about the expectations of how to be a GM. I'll try to explain why I find even the concept of framing the conversation as you describe somewhat odd. (although in the future I will approach this differently when dealing with new acquaintances)

I guess having played mostly with friends it's never really been a problem to align on the stylistic side. That doesn't mean every session was always a creative firework where DM discretion, preparation and player contribution gave way to a perfect experience. Sometimes that GM came up with something dumb, the GM discretion went too far, the rolls turned wrecking things beyond what discretion could fix. Or we followed published material and it didn't work out. It's not like it is always been perfect. But "you lied!" has never been something that came up - however "that was dull/silly/weird" has come up. I have seen players upset at the GM for not fudging rolls/circumstances to prevent character deaths - but not particularly often. I have also seen players upset at the GM for getting the challenge wrong (in the direction of high lethality), but that was about getting the discretion wrong, not about having it in the first place. No one ever said "this should have been prepared in advance and the GM shouldn't change it once we've started the session".

Perhaps an explanation is that none of the groups I've played in have enjoyed the style of gaming where the point is to beat some challenging sandbox or set-piece "dungeon" through clever use of game mechanics or (in or out of character) cleverness. We've certainly played crunch-heavy at times, and fudging rules/rolls has generally been the exception. It's always been mostly about character development, role-playing, narratives and world building.

This is across decades of gaming and groups in three different cities. I have met people with different playstyles - usually either power-gamers or ones with ritualized approaches to gaming that were incompatible with my desires at the time (that's for another post). In those cases, I just didn't play more than one or two sessions with this combination of people (could be an individual, could be a group). I have also played at conventions where I had no idea whether the GM was fudging anything or not, but I've honestly never experienced anyone asking about whether this was ok or not.

I am actually currently without a group - but if I got back with some of the previous groups we wouldn't need to have this talk. DM discretion and player creative input through action is just how we did things, and I really don't think we'd even consider discussing it (although I might mention that I've come across people who play differently and ask what they think about that).

If my next group isn't one with familiar faces, it depends a bit on whether I am GM or not how I'd approach figuring out the social contract. As a visiting player, it's pretty simple to figure out what is expected. As a player joining a long-term campaign, I'd make sure the group aligned with my preferences (but that's probably more about whether I feel the chemistry is there than the system to use). As a guest GM, I think it's incredibly important to get consensus in place. When the time comes to GM a campaign again, I'll certainly make sure the players have the same preferences (by playing one-offs, conversations, session 0, etc.) before committing to a campaign. But there's a lot more ground to cover than whether GM discretion is allowed or not. It would probably be a hard pass for me if that's not part of the package.

I guess my experience with GM discretion is why I am slightly confused at the opposition to illusion (and even the concept of labelling it thus) in this thread - it wasn't ever a conversation we had. Many people in this thread seem to consider "illusion" the deviation from the norm - but that's not how it's been for me or my groups. People don't tend to discuss something they consider the norm.

The notion of the GM simply being an arbiter, NPC controller and scenario designer is so far removed from what we considered the role of the GM that I think we'd consider it an exotic experiment to try it out. But to me it sounds like a board game or miniature game with extra steps. I think for me playing an RPG where the GM isn't injecting ad hoc creativity is just plain worse. I can see how I could enjoy something like Dungeon World, The Burning Wheel, etc. - that's a different way of contributing to a dynamic narrative than I'm used to, but I think it could be fun. (one group did do something like this for a few sessions but without codifying it, we just allowed players to state reality whenever). However I don't think a purely "static reality" would be fun for me.

Player narrative input however, is something that has been a topic. Not to the point of codifying it, but having talks about how much influence players have at sessions and between sessions in shaping the narrative and the world. I've played with groups that had a rotating GM chair, for example (with the same campaign, characters and narrative). But I've never experienced conflicts around narrative agency and/or authority (whereas as I have experienced clashes regarding intra-player conflict, individuals dominating the sessions socially, players having character concepts that made the game less fun for others, players disliking a system, players disliking a setting, etc.) I have seen conflicts where the GM was upset with the players for not taking the game seriously enough. So it's kind of interesting to see 'illusion' as a point of contention, when it just never came up.

So in conclusion - no, I never asked this question (nor was I ever asked by a GM), as we've always assumed that (responsible and restrained, yet theoretically total) GM creative authority was the baseline. It is probably the one aspect of gameplay which has been constant across the decades. But this thread has certainly prepared me that I might encounter players who assume differently (which I did already consider, just in a slightly different optic as described above).

It's not GM creative authority I have a problem with (very much the opposite actually). Its the idea of exercising that authority in the middle of the session to alter existing prep, whether to conform to player expectations or otherwise. I strongly disagree with that particular philosophy, because to me it annihilates player agency by making their choices meaningless without an existing world upon which decisions can be based. This is what I call illusionism. And if your players don't know you're doing it, you can't say whether or not they'd be ok with it.

 

[Cadence]

It's not GM creative authority I have a problem with (very much the opposite actually). Its the idea of exercising that authority in the middle of the session to alter existing prep, whether to conform to player expectations or otherwise. I strongly disagree with that particular philosophy, because to me it annihilates player agency by making their choices meaningless without an existing world upon which decisions can be based. This is what I call illusionism. And if your players don't know you're doing it, you can't say whether or not they'd be ok with it.

I agree that going against what the players know and their decisions is bad (I e. changing something to make it harder because they figured it out or got some lucky rolls).

On the other hand I'm not sure what makes a lot of the penciled chicken scratch about the dungeon from last month more sacrosanct than the fixes I did right before the session or the changes I want to make right before they open the door. It's one thing if I'm changing something that alters the value of the information they've been gathering. But if I draw the whole town map and forgot to put in a blacksmith and they ask about it before exploring the whole thing, it sure feels ok to me to put one in. Or if I really miss gauged the power level of an encounter I'm not going to TPK them anymore than I'll let an entire class irl fail something because one of the problems was a lot lot harder than I meant it to be.

 

[Golroc]

It's not GM creative authority I have a problem with (very much the opposite actually). Its the idea of exercising that authority in the middle of the session to alter existing prep, whether to conform to player expectations or otherwise. I strongly disagree with that particular philosophy, because to me it annihilates player agency by making their choices meaningless without an existing world upon which decisions can be based. This is what I call illusionism. And if your players don't know you're doing it, you can't say whether or not they'd be ok with it.

But they did know and I knew when was on the other side of the table. We didn't do quantum adventures where the narrative was just bent back into shape whatever the players did (we had a few GMs with a bit of that but never fully). Choices mattered all of the time. But prep was malleable and there was tons of improvisation. I don't know how to describe it better but there really wasn't any grand deceptions going on. We just had a more loose style than you would be comfortable with I guess. Super high trust one could call it maybe? And this is across 4-5 groups. It wasn't just one group.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I agree that going against what the players know and their decisions is bad (I e. changing something to make it harder because they figured it out or got some lucky rolls).

On the other hand I'm not sure what makes a lot of the penciled chicken scratch about the dungeon from last month more sacrosanct than the fixes I did right before the session or the changes I want to make right before they open the door. It's one thing if I'm changing something that alters the value of the information they've been gathering. But if I draw the whole town map and forgot to put in a blacksmith and they ask about it before exploring the whole thing, it sure feels ok to me to put one in. Or if I really miss gauged the power level of an encounter I'm not going to TPK them anymore than I'll let an entire class irl fail something because one of the problems was a lot lot harder than I meant it to be.

Its a matter of preference, of course. I don't make changes to the play in the huddle.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

No. I believe perception dictates experience. I don't really see what is so controversial and strange about claiming that perceived agency can have value. Imagination and the (voluntary) exposure to illusion is a cornerstone of many kinds of entertainment. It's quite possible to engage in such activities without being a solipsist or adherent of magical thinking.

I don't think anyone objects to what other people's values are, you are welcome to them. I think what people are reacting to is the suggestion that a belief in the existence of a thing is equivalent to the actual existence of that thing! I hope you can see how such an assertion would be met with skepticism...

I am much more understanding of the posters who profess that they want the player contributions codified and prefer a system which has additional support for and opportunities for player impact on the narrative of the game. It's not what I would prefer as a baseline (although I want to try it out and thus challenge my preconceptions), but I can very much see where this preference would come from. I can also see how being denied this would constitute a massive loss of agency for such a player. But for us illusion-enjoyers? We can find agency in being part of a process that has a final arbiter and mediator. I object to this denial of agency.

Again, I don't think the problem is what you can 'find agency' in, it is the notion that agency is some nebulous feeling and thus that 'believing in it' is the same thing as having it. We differ on that point. In terms of understanding that my preferences are not everyone's preferences, and they aren't especially privileged, that I am not having any trouble with (any more than any other random human at least).

 

[Cadence]

Its a matter of preference, of course. I don't make changes to the play in the huddle.

I can certainly appreciate that

I guess one question I have for clarification is, when is the huddle? After you first sketch things out, when you start the adventure, when they start investigating the part in question, when that days session starts?

Another is what do you do if you realize you forgot to include something - like the blacksmith in town, or the stairs and dungeon level you told them about but didn't put on the map?

If the characters decide to go off to the unfilled in part of the map, do you make it up on the fly?

 

[Golroc]

I don't think anyone objects to what other people's values are, you are welcome to them. I think what people are reacting to is the suggestion that a belief in the existence of a thing is equivalent to the actual existence of that thing! I hope you can see how such an assertion would be met with skepticism...

Again, I don't think the problem is what you can 'find agency' in, it is the notion that agency is some nebulous feeling and thus that 'believing in it' is the same thing as having it. We differ on that point. In terms of understanding that my preferences are not everyone's preferences, and they aren't especially privileged, that I am not having any trouble with (any more than any other random human at least).

Part of the problem is that I've adjusted my verbiage to match what most people in this thread use. I actually do think agency as a concept has both subjective and objective elements. But that's not how this thread is using it, so it's useless for me to cling to this. Hence I use terms agency and perceived agency. With definition of agency used by most people in this thread (where it pertains only to objective agency) those two very much are different things. I am not trying to claim that the perception of something is the same as the actual thing. (and I don't think a debate about definitions contributes anything, so I've adjusted my jargon accordingly - therefore lets not return to the discussion about how to define agency).

But regardless: with the definition of agency and perceived agency as separate concepts, there are players who will value perceived agency as much, or even more, than (objective) agency. Several people in this thread seem to reject that this is possible and/or that it is a valid preference. That's my issue. A discussion about player agency has to consider that some people find perceived agency to be important. Because if one is faced with a player who is upset about lacking agency, it matters a whole lot whether they care about perceived agency or not. Especially if they're the kind who have less perceived agency than objective agency (because generally such players are not going to become happy by being told they're wrong and they actually have more agency than they think*).

And it is also important to recognize that perceived agency depends on a mixture of actual and imagined agency (as entirely subjective agency with no objective agency generally doesn't happen in practice). If one accepts that some players enjoy perceived agency, it becomes relevant to consider relevant techniques and ways to align expectations so to avoid ruining the perceived agency.

Finally, the post you replied to wasn't just about perceived agency - it was also about mediated agency and authority - and how a player who contributes to the shared fiction does not lose all agency simply because the GM has a function of mediating/filtering those contributions. As long as it happens within the agreed upon conventions it really is fine. If a player contributes and the contribution has a material impact on the narrative/world/state/shared fiction, that is objective agency. Some might consider it a lesser form of agency than one without a filter. I don't agree - because by the same measure, contributions gated by dice would also be lesser as they're equally contingent on a secondary factor. GM authority acting as a mediator of (elements of) player agency does not lessen it, unless one considers weird hypothetical situations that are nothing like an actual game.

So there are two separate things here - acknowledging perceived agency as relevant and valid (for some) and acknowledging filtered/mediated agency as relevant and valid (for some). I am not trying to say these things are all the same, just that they are equally relevant and valid.

* I've played with a person who genuinely believed she had bad luck. She considered random elements unfair to her and even expressed feeling powerless when resolution of game mechanics used dice. That is of course absurd - even if it also holds a nugget of truth in that dice can be unfair and can evoke feelings of powerlessness. Such a player needs a diceless system to be happy. This is of course an extreme example, but it is real, and I am using it to make a point that subjectivity can matter a lot in practice.

 

[bloodtide]

Your "otherwise" is not true. I've given examples, including extended accounts of actual play; and have referred to various rulebooks.

Right, and that is what I'm talking about. You give lots of examples of actual play. They read like typical sessions. But then you say there is "player agency" in there somewhere. Maybe you can break it down a bit more as I'm missing it.

I get you endless talk about the rules. But I still wonder "how" do rules give players agency? You never say it, so my guess is your saying "the rules"......somehow" are "forcing" the GM to do something?

GM: "The vault door is locked"
Player: "Whatever GM, my character does their Door Action Ability...and got a total of 17, and as per page 11 of The Rules, My character opens the door! All Hail the Rules!"
GM (looks down utterly defeated and powerless) "Yes, your character opens the door...All Hail the Rules!"

And I get that many games are made of all Rule Zealots, all the players and the GM. Where everyone is waiting for "the rules" to tell them what happened

Now you don't say this.....but it SOUNDS like your saying "The Rules" can be used by the players to over power and over rule the GM. Like the GM says "the door is locked and your character can't open it". Then the player whips out a rule like a 'reverse Uno card' and says "Ha I got a 17 for my Action Check and my character opens the door! All hail the rules!" So over rifing or over ruling the GM is "player agency".

And, IF the GM is a hard core Rule Zealot they will look at the rule and nod "your character opens the door, All hail the rules"......willingly.

But, ok, so what if it's not a Rule Zealot type GM? The player makes a roll and takes an action.....but the GM can ALWAYS say "nope, did not work." Even in a normal simple game there can be dozens of reasons a "roll rule" does not work 100%. So, a GM always gets final say...no matter the roll or rules.

The most basic point, to reiterate, is this: the GM frames scenes, and narrates consequences, having regard to the goals and aspirations that the players have established for their PCs.

This sounds vague enough to be a normal RPG. But you say it's not. After all a normal RPG has a lot of detail and pre game prep......and you'd say this is not done. Though when I say "it's not done"....you will like say "it IS done". So...you will just be going around in circles......

Honestly, the main difference is the GM is not making everything up ahead, instead its mostly done on the fly as you go building up a crazy fantastical world filled with hair-raising danger and thrills!

Thank you for the detailed response. I do have some concerns/questions.

I get the impression DM was made 1)As an anti-adventure like D&D type game, 2)A game for Casual and Relaxed GMs, and most of all 3) for simple game play.

I know you will push back on the "simple game" part at least. But a game randomly made 'on the fly' can never ever come close to the complexity of a game with a bulk ton of detail made up pre game. The best example is a murder mystery. You can have a Simple murder mystery....this is exactly what cartoons like Scooby Do do. But you need a plain and simple fictional world too. Lets take a murder mystery where a wizard at magic school is killed.

So the characters start to look for clues in the DW game....and the GM has made NOTHING up at all about the murder. So as the players just randomly aimlessly search, the GM just tells them random things. The GM has not written down the murder background...THAT would be part of writing an adventure. So, for every action a player takes....the GM just comes up with a random on the spot response.

But this can ONLY work in a Simple game.....with a plot like an episode of Schooby Do. If the wizard school only has eight wizards(one for each school) and each wears ONE color always and ONLY one of the wizards did the killing. Then when the blue robed wizard is killed, and the characters find a bit of torn red thread in the hand.....then they KNOW the red wizard did it.

But in any game more complex then that....like the suspects are not color coded and you have at minimum 25 wizard teachers, 200 students, another 35 faculty, 5 guests, the spouses, children, partners, or friends of the previous 265....plus potentially anyone else in the city/world/multiverse. Well, for this type of murder mystery the GM MUST know who did it, how and why, and lots and lots and lots of other details. You HAVE to write this adventure out a head of time.

Also, it does seem like a "trigger" can be anything? So it's a bit of a useless rule?

And...well, the GM is the one that decides "what" a "trigger" is, right? So kind doubles down on the useless rule.

But....most of all....I don't see how DW game play would be "so different":

The player "suddenly" wants to head south. The GM says "the bridge over the river of doom was washed away in the last storm and has not been rebuilt.".

So in a game like D&D, a player might get all on edge because they think the GM is "just stopping" their character from going south because the DM does not want that to happen.


But in the DW game, the player just sits back happily because they KNOW everything the GM does is to make an engaging, beautiful game for everyone to enjoy. After all, not only do the rules say that, but the GM will often echo the rules.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I can certainly appreciate that

I guess one question I have for clarification is, when is the huddle? After you first sketch things out, when you start the adventure, when they start investigating the part in question, when that days session starts?

Another is what do you do if you realize you forgot to include something - like the blacksmith in town, or the stairs and dungeon level you told them about but didn't put on the map?

If the characters decide to go off to the unfilled in part of the map, do you make it up on the fly?

I write up the setting, with special attention paid to the starting area, before the campaign begins. If they decide to go somewhere I haven't fully fleshed out yet, I generally do that between sessions before they get there. Same thing with going off the map, although I make big maps so that hasn't ever happened. If I forgot something that needs an answer, I base it on the surroundings and the setting assumptions, and if there's no good reason why it can't be like the players want, I probably do it that way.