Some Thoughts on Player Agency

One of the topics that I've seen come up a lot in recent months is player agency, often placed in contrast with DM authority. How much control should players be expected to cede for the good of the game, and how much trust needs to be given both by the DM, and by the players? What acts are actual infringement of player agency, and which acts are just your DM being a dick? Or your players being dicks? Or just everyone being a dick all around the table?

You know, the tough questions! 

Well, I'll be honest, I don't have all the answers. I do, however, have some answers, and I thought I'd put them out there for players and DMs to chew on.

A Working Definition of Player Agency

Before we can go any further, let's outline a working definition of what player agency actually is. For my purposes, player agency is the player's final say over the actions their character takes in a situation when there is no mechanical compulsion forcing them to act differently. Not the results of those actions, mind you, but simply what is being attempted.

Put another way, if you want to punch that guard, you are more than welcome to try. There is no guarantee you'll succeed, and it might be a really stupid idea, but if you want to make the attempt then that is your decision.

For example, let's take a look at Brian. Brian's decided to put together a half-orc barbarian named Krakkar. When the party walks into the local tavern after their adventure, if the DM says to Brian, "Krakkar orders a strong, stout beer, and begins to tell the tale of your adventure," then Brian is well within his rights as a player to hold up a finger for a point of order, and tell the DM, "Krakk would order wine for himself, and for anyone else in the party who wants a round. He'll answer questions if they're asked, but he's not talkative, and has no interest in boasting. He doesn't need to tell everyone about his deeds, because he's already done them, and that's enough for him."

A proper reward after a long day hunting bandits.

In this example, the DM attempted to give narration to a player's character, but the narration in question was out-of-character for the PC, and usurped Brian's role as the player. It's a minor thing, unimportant in the long run, but a clear-cut example of a situation where the DM took away player agency by telling the player what their PC does, instead of asking the player which actions their character would take in this situation.

Mechanical Compulsion, and Losing Control

Player agency is pretty ironclad most of the time. Any action you want to attempt, whether it's tracking down a piece of lost history in a library, or charging into a dragon's cave, is within your right to try. Even if the action is stupid, or has little to no chance of success, you are free to do it, or not do it as you desire.

Sometimes, though, the rules state you must take certain actions. Whether you like it, or not.

What did you say your Will save was? Oh... that's not good...

As a for-instance, suppose Brian's barbarian fails a Will save against the spell Cause Fear when he's level 2. Failure means the character is frightened, and must flee from the source of that fear. Even if Krakkar is a hard-nosed, never-say-die kind of fighter who would rather die than run from a fight, the mechanical effect of the spell supersedes that personality trait.

We see this all the time when it comes to magic. You're forced to become friendly, you're forced to flee, or you're forced to follow the instructions of the caster. A few bad saves can, and do, make it possible for someone else to dictate a player character's actions. However, if you agree to play the game with those spells active, then you have agreed that there are ways you can be compulsed to act. Just as you have also agreed that there are ways to avoid those effects, and counter them using class abilities, spells, and in some cases just simple ear plugs.

Some More Things That Aren't Attacks on Agency

My definition of player agency is pretty simple; you have control over the things your character says, attempts, etc. unless a mechanical compulsion makes you do otherwise. However, there are some folks out there who believe that any time a DM tells a player no, that is somehow an attack on their agency. So let me be extra clear, here. If a DM disallows certain races in their game, or bans certain classes, or says no to a character concept, that isn't them taking away player agency. Especially if those things are made clear before a player agrees to join a game, and was informed of those restrictions in advance.

Put another way, if your DM says only good alignments, base races, and base classes, and you show up with a chaotic evil dhampir ninja, that is you refusing to play by the rules as they were set up, not your DM taking away your freedom.

Seriously, Typhus sounds like a ball, but he's going to get wrecked by his party-mates.

Other things that are not taking away player agency include telling you that the items you want to buy are not available in the local area (particularly if they're powerful magic items), making it clear that there are no other ways into the enemy's impregnable fortress except for the one secret entrance you managed to uncover, killing NPCs you care about, and even killing a player character.

Those things might be frustrating, they might be done for the wrong reasons, or they might even be done as a result of bad rules calls. But they have nothing to do with your agency as a player.

Cooperation, And Asking Rather Than Telling, Solves Problems

The easiest way to solve questions of maintaining player agency (and of running better games in general) is learning how to ask, instead of tell. For example, if you're the DM, present the facts of the scene as they unfold. The party enters the Duke's audience chamber, and the steward asks them to kindly state their business to the lord. Instead of telling the players whose PC steps forward, or what they say, end the narration and ask, "all right, what do you do?"

Essentially, recognize that the game is a tennis match. You serve the narration ball back to the players, the players declare their actions, and if necessary dice are rolled to determine outcomes. Then the ball goes back to the DM, who swats it back over, etc., etc.

And if you're a player, ask the DM if the course of action you want to take is possible, or if the things you want to add onto your sheet are possible. As a for-instance, don't tell the DM you're buying 10 alchemist fire flasks at the rural county store. Ask the DM if that many are available. Or, better yet, roleplay with the shop keep to find out if there are that many, if you can negotiate the price down, or where you could get a line on that sort of item if it isn't available here. Instead of assuming you have access to any and all materials in the game, ask the DM what restrictions there are before you start building your character. And if there is a restriction you don't like, ask why it's there, and if there's any way you could get a waiver, or have an exception made.

Lastly, remember this. We are here to come together to play a cooperative game. If there are problems at the table, talk them out, and work on them. And if you aren't enjoying a game, there is nothing that says you have to keep playing. Or running, if you feel that your DMing style just isn't going to provide the game your players are looking for.

That's all for this week's Moon Pope Monday post. It's technically Wednesday, but I got my wires crossed and accidentally did my posts out of order. But if you want to see more gaming material from yours truly, then check out my Gamers archive. It's growing a little every month. To stay on top of all my recent releases, follow me on Facebook, Tumblr, and Twitter, and if you want to support Improved Initiative, head to The Literary Mercenary's Patreon page. All I ask is $1 a month, which goes a lot further than you would think.

Player Versus Player is Something You Need Permission For

Intraparty conflict happens. Maybe it's when the barbarian has had enough of the bard's not-so-veiled insults, and demands the singer either put up, or shut up. Maybe it's when the cleric wants to give aid to the refugees the party has stumbled across near a destroyed village, but the rogue would rather they not deplete their own stores of healing items, food, and water helping people they don't know. It might even be a difference of opinion between the paladin and the wizard regarding which plan for assaulting the villain's fortress is the one they should follow.

It's tempting to just let the PCs roll initiative and have it out. However, if player versus player wasn't discussed as part of your Session 0, then you need to put the kibosh on that strategy.

1 V 1 me, bro!

The issue with PVP is that, much like a boxing match, if both sides haven't agreed beforehand, then someone is breaking the rules.

The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly

On the one hand, PVP does add a dash of (and I hate to use this word) realism to the game. It removes the illusion that player characters are somehow immune to certain threats, and that they can say or do whatever they want to the rest of the party without violence or death as a possible repercussion. The knowledge that the table doesn't allow PVP, for example, might be the reason the bard feels secure making jab after jab at the barbarian, because no matter how mad the tank gets, he can't just beat the musician to death with his own mandolin.

If you take away that security, then you suddenly have to deal with the real potential that your actions may come back to bite you. And that might stop you from, say, thieving from the communal treasure pot, or deciding to keep making suggestive comments to the sorcerer as his hand starts glowing with eldritch fire.

Don't worry, we're not ignoring the other side of this coin.

With that said, PVP isn't the RPG equivalent of, "an armed society is a polite society." Because there are also players who will use the, "my PC can kill your PC," threat as a way to bully other folks at the table. Because sure, the rest of the party might declare that they are officially no longer adventuring with Godran Red Hand because he's a violent loose cannon, but such a declaration doesn't guarantee you won't have the player try to fight the rest of the party to try going out in a blaze of glory.

Beyond these very practical arguments for and against PVP, though, there are other concerns. As a for instance, most RPGs are supposed to be cooperative affairs. The party comes together to raid the dungeon, stop the overthrow of the king, or to push back the demon horde. Not allowing PVP means that the characters have to work together to find diplomatic solutions to their own conflicts (or, at least, to agree to disagree on certain matters). If the party can just use violence, or magic, in a "might makes right" scenario, then that erodes the idea of cooperative play.

Then there's the fallout. It's depressing enough to lose a character because of a lucky crit from the DM, but that's something we expect to happen. You step to the plot, and sometimes the plot buries you. But when another player is the cause of your PC's death, that's another kettle of fish. Even if their actions make total sense in the context of both their story, and the plot, it's hard not to feel like you were stabbed in the back. It's even harder to keep those meta concerns out of your future play, even if you both have characters totally unconnected to that one time Dave killed your bard when he was sleeping. Even if players think they're mature, and they agree that it's, "just a game," there can be hard feelings when PVP is allowed to happen.

If You're Going To Do It, Get Consent

PVP should never be a surprise to anyone at the table. In fact, you should add it to your question list before every campaign you start. Ask your table if they want PVP, and why. If possible, make sure they vote unanimously on it (especially if it's a yes). This grants everyone protection from blow back in the event that one PC does willingly kill another, because it was something everyone consented to before the game got started.

And, just like any other situation where everyone gave consent, you should repeatedly check your table's comfort level as you go along to be sure they don't want to revoke that consent. Because PVP might sound cool in theory, but once your players get a taste of it they might find it's actually bitter and harsh, rather than sweet and exciting.

In the end, PVP is kind of like Sriracha. Some people love it, even when it does serious damage to them and their friendships. Other people might like it on occasion for a bit of spice, and some people will politely decline it entirely. Make sure you know what your table's position is before you give the go-ahead for an all-party death match.

That's all for this week's Moon Pope Monday post. Hopefully it clears up some things for folks who have had trouble with PVP, and haven't quite known how to put it into words. If you want more content from yours truly, then check out my archive over at Gamers, and follow me on Facebook, Tumblr, and Twitter. Lastly, if you want to help me keep Improved Initiative going, why not consider becoming a Literary Mercenary Patreon patron? As little as $1 a month helps keep the lights on, and 

The "Modern Adventures" Kickstarter Has Begun!

Admit it, we've all had that thought. That thought that goes, "what if we could take all the stuff we like in this fantasy RPG, but set it in the modern day?" You know, so you could have elf politicians arguing against term limits because they're prejudiced against long-lived races. Or gangs of goblins on the lower east side that you need to either fight, bribe, or win Diplomacy checks with to make your allies against greater dangers. Maybe you want to see dragons protected as an endangered species, or ask what it would be like to see a team of orcs play football.

Rather than hammer your head through the table trying to adapt Pathfinder to do all those things, check out the Kickstarter for Modern Adventures.

Your otyugh problem's fixed. Bathroom's a mess, though.

Now, I haven't read the rules myself, but it looks like a project worth checking out.

What Makes Modern Adventures Different

So what's the big deal about Modern Adventures? Well, the most obvious change is that it takes place in the modern era. That means guns are pretty common, Internet exists, and you can still go down to the corner cafe to get a grande latte. The difference is that your barista might be a gnome, and you might have a halfling correspondent on the news, telling you about the day's happenings.

Weather's great out in Shire, California. Back to you, Cliff!

The other big difference is that this game isn't set in Golarion, or any other fantasy world you'd typically play Pathfinder in. It's set on Earth, and it's meant to reflect the reality we know through a slightly fractured lens. So, while the ancient Persian empire still happened, it's possible that the Immortals were, in fact, a contingent of full-blooded orcs. There may be elven veterans who remember, and talk about, the American Civil War. And when urban blight gets bad, it might create a home for aberrations, monsters, and dangerous creatures, in addition to opening the doors to drug abuse, poverty, and all the ills we see from our purely human civilization.

Is It Worth A Look?

I repeat, I have not seen this book. I have not read the changes it made to the skills, and I haven't see what stats it created for heavy weapons, kevlar, etc. I have not see what explanations the game makes for how we got to the modern world we're all familiar with, even with trolls, magic, wizards, and clerics who can call upon the divine to turn belief into fact when it comes to religion. Nor have I seen how the game eliminates spell levels, and instead gives all spellcasters control over a kind of pool of power.

I do know that all those things have been promised. I'll be withholding judgment on the game as a whole until I can look at the content, but I know that some of the things I might think of as flaws would be features to other players. So, go look at the Kickstarter, and see if Modern Adventures is a game you've been looking for.

That's all for this week's Moon Pope Monday installment. Hopefully you find something worth chatting about, whether or not you become a backer. If you're looking for more content from yours truly, check out my Gamers archive. It's growing all the time. To stay up-to-date on all my latest content, follow me on Facebook, Tumblr, and Twitter. And if you want to help support me and my work, head over to The Literary Mercenary's Patreon page to become a patron. All it takes is $1 a month, and you'll be helping me out in addition to getting some sweet swag as a thank you!