Unpopular D&D Opinions

[Mordar]

Player agency in RPGs is amongst the most overrated elements.

How do you rank it's importance? How does it seem overrated?

I am interested. Please tell me more.

That one seems weird to me too, because IMX "player agency" correlates heavily with "fun".

Also given that I define Roleplaying as making in character decisions in the fantasy environment, IMX also correlates heavily heavily with "roleplaying". But that may be more a case of chicken and egg.

I'm curious about this... Because agency and freedom of choice is the one thing that tabletop RPGs do better than electronic ones. And what keeps bringing me back to the hobby in the first place.

I admit this was a bit of a leading statement, but let me try to explain.

Quick background: Began with AD&D in 1983, played a very wide range of games actively through probably 2010. Broad sampling - probably played 30 - 40 different systems- in an array of settings (home, store, convention, etc), but the vast majority has been in-person with a social component (not necessarily friends, but people that I was interested in spending time with). Have not played anything regularly in the last 5 years. That may have relevance.

For the last few years (maybe more), I have seen loud statements about player agency, the terrible evils of "railroading", and the horrible Quantum Ogre. I believe these to be linked, and are all a matter of degree (of course), but I think perhaps it is the quantum ogre that is the biggest stimulus on this issue. My perspective is that there exists at least a loud-enough-for-me-to-hear group that feels no decision, situation or action should involve their character without expressed choice and permission, and that every action taken by their character should lead to a unique set of outcomes.

In general, I believe part of the social contract of RPGs involves ceding some level of individual agency to the group, both GM and other players, to support the enjoyment of a shared experience. I believe that I should have agency for the major decisions, pivotal actions, mechanical development, etc., within the scope of limitations established for the specific group in the specific game. However, I also believe that the best games I have played involve a level of trust that some degree of agency can/should be ceded to further the experience of the group. To whit, I will advocate biting the adventure hook, or accepting the in media res of starting a story in the clutches of the evil bads/finding ourselves in a dark alleyway by the docks/waking on a ship about to make the jump through the wormhole to the Delta Quadrant...because I trust and believe that the GM is making that decision for the good of the experience.

I will, of course, expect to be able to make the decision to slay the dragon or let her eat the kidnapped prince, to choose not to follow the dictates of the Hobbit evil overlord, or to abandon my Quest for the Holey Quail.

If I know about the ogre outside of town, and that he's watching the western gate...and choose to go out the eastern gate hidden in a barrel of fish, I may well be displeased that the ogre is suddenly on the eastern road...but if we are none the wiser and the GM has planned a ogre/griffin/gibbering mouther encounter that will occur on the Old Towne Road while transiting from Nowhere Hamlet to Bigcityville, I have precisely zero issue with that encounter falling on us even if we chose New Towne Path instead of Old Towne Road.

An extreme definition of player agency (I control every facet of everything regarding my character, and my actions must always carry consequences unique to those choices, regardless of the benefit to the game as a whole) has been put forth as vital/most important. It is that kind of "agency" I mean when I say player agency is overrated...there are times when that degree of expectation on the part of the players is, to me, perhaps selfish (? - need better word here) and lessens the value of the experience for the group.

There are lines not to be crossed, there are lines that should only be crossed sometimes, and there are things that I will always cede to the experience, at least until I know that I cannot trust that GM to "play fair" with my agency...and that's not likely to lead to a continued experience. I think there's even a difference between player agency at the table and between sessions.

tl;dr: Quantum ogres are fine. Starting the story on the path to King Blobb's Mines even if we didn't play out the mission acceptance is fine. Destroying everything my character worked for on a whim, not fine. Making my character take actions demonstrably and directly opposed to my paradigm, not fine. Agency is important, but it isn't the most important thing in the game.

- M

Saw this after:

I’m also interested in this. Would like to hear more.

On the whole I’d say I disagree, player agency is very important. That said, some recent discussion here in the playground made me think and conclude it’s not quite as important as I thought. Specifically, it’s not the core thing that’s at issue when we think about “railroading”.

But if your point is that railroading is good actually, then I CERTAINLY disagree.

Some degree of what I believe many people think of as railroading may be acceptable, and potentially even good...but the classic perjorative use (to me: single solution to adventures, GM drives everything and players just roll dice, can never turn away from the scripted plot) is a loud no. I advocate for hopping on and off the train as the group wills, and that the train is only transport to the start of the new story.