One thing I have seen ruin games a lot is player conflict. Not to be confused with character conflict (players enjoying their characters having a rivalry), player conflict is where one players actions reduce another players enjoyment of the game, often with the reason "it's what my character would do." This is never good.
Ignoring people who are just being disruptive for the sake of it, most of the time this happens because one player, intentionally or not, steps on another players agency.
I have found a way to navigate this in my games and I wanted to share in case it helps other people.
Example: Jack & Jill are fighting a wolf
On his turn, Jack, a ranger, declares he is going to use his action to see if he can calm the wolf and end the encounter in a non-lethally. He rolls an Animal Handling check and rolls well. The DM narrates that the wolf hesitates, confused. It hasn't backed down yet, but it also is not attacking (DM ruling: need two more successes to achieve 'make friends with wolf' and wolf will attack if fail twice).
Next is Jill the paladin's turn. Jill's character sees the wolf as a threat to humanity and wants to kill it.
Example of bad player behavior:
Jill declares 'I attack', rolls to attack. She may or may not kill the wolf, but has regardless destroyed Jack's previous skill success, and ended his chance to end the encounter peacefully. Jack-the-player gets upset as, in his imagination, he was already bonding with this creature and now he witnesses an animal akin to a pet, attacked by a fellow player. Jack will likely never trust Jill's character again and - more importantly - he will likely never trust Jill-the-player again. Jill is confused because in her mind she was just "doing what her character would do". She is not thinking about how she made the other player feel, or how she stepped on Jack's agency. The game stops being fun.
Examples of good player behavior:
Before she attacks, Jill makes it very clear what she is intending. She says "the paladin looks at the wolf and sees a rabid dog that needs to be put down lest it cause further misery. She slowly and carefully positions herself to make the killing blow while it is distracted by the ranger". Straight away this opens up her character's decision to discussion and what happens next depends on player communication. Some examples could be;
"the ranger makes eye contact with the paladin and nods sadly, he reaches out to the wolf to further distract it, with the hope that it's last memory will be of kindness"
"the ranger's eyes widen in shock and fear and he moves to throw himself between the wolf and the paladin" Jack says with a grin, loving the drama. He says that when the paladin's sword falls the ranger will scream "noooooooooooooo....!" and throw himself across the body of the wolf.
Jack immediately jumps in with "the ranger shoots the paladin a savage look. Don't. You. F***ing. Dare. And goes back to calming the animal". Jill adds "the paladin stays her blade - for now- ready and waiting for the beast to turn. I'll hold my action and attack if the wolf looks like it is going to."
These are all hugely different results, but they all have in common the way that when there was a potential character clash, the player said what they were going to do, not what they did. The difference here is huge;
The players didn't step on each other's agency
The players didn't compromise their character's ideals or motivations
Both players were including in the unfolding story
The game continued to be fun
The important thing is that players don't get to impinge on other players agency.
Have the player describe their character's action and allow the other player(s) to describe how their character would react. All right. Pretty good idea. Have to wonder though, how much discussion do they get to do before the dice roll? In your example there was a fairly long exchange before anything was done. More characters would make this increase exponentially. Everyone wants their say. That's "Agency" after all. Sure, talking can be done freely, but at some point the game is slowing down a lot.
In the example, the fault seems to lie with Jack. He didn't describe his action first. How does Jill know what he's doing and why? She can guess, but all she knows is that he tried to calm the animal. Maybe he's trying to set things up for her? So great! On with the sword attack! She should even have Advantage there.
In the example, the fault seems to lie with Jack. He didn't describe his action first. How does Jill know what he's doing and why? She can guess, but all she knows is that he tried to calm the animal. Maybe he's trying to set things up for her? So great! On with the sword attack! She should even have Advantage there.
Sorry - that was my bad. I have edited the post to make it clear that Jack did declare what he was doing
The important thing is that players don't get to impinge on other players agency.
People keep using the term "player agency." I don't think the term means what they think it means.
Player agency describes your ability to have your character attempt to do what you think that character would do, at the point when your character would have the chance to do it. In a combat situation, this means that when Jack's turn comes up in the round, his player is allowed to have Jack act, within the rules of combat, how the player wants. Jack's player wanted to use animal handling to calm the wolf, and the DM allowed him to roll. The roll was a success, so the wolf is being calmed. This completes Jack's round, and then his turn is up.
Jack's agency does not include determining how Jill behaves on her turn. If Jill's player decides that Jill would, and should, attack the wolf, Jill has not taken Jack's agency away. His turn has already passed, and the DM has already allowed him to do what he wanted to do and he succeeded at the task based on the die rolls. If Jill kills the wolf on her turn, Jack still tamed it on his. The fact that Jack doesn't like what Jill decided to do does not take away Jack's agency (although, obviously, it may make both the character and the player unhappy).
For Jill to take away Jack's agency, she would have to be capable of preventing him from making the Animal Handling attempt in the first place. If, when Jack's player said, "I want to try to tame the wolf with AH," Jill's player had said, "DM, I am going to attack the wolf on my turn, so you shouldn't let him do that," and the DM had then said, "Sorry Jack, Jill wants to kill the wolf so you can't try to tame it" -- that would be taking Jack's agency away.
But that didn't happen here. Jack got to do exactly what he wanted, made his roll, and succeeded. Once his turn is over, it is not about his agency anymore - it is about Jill's.
Too many people these days seem to think that "player agency" is not about choices, but about outcomes. Jack made his choice, and got to act, exactly as he wanted to. But if Jill then beheads the wolf, Jack's player (and the character) is not pleased with the outcome. But players don't get to determine outcomes, only choices. Outcomes depend on other players and the DM, as well as die rolls, statistical tables in the book, and the like.
Now, all that said, I think that your overall point -- that players should not step on each other's toes -- is a good one. If Jill's player knows that Jack's player wants to use his cool ranger abilities to tame a wolf rather than kill it, then Jill's player should try to find a way to work with that to produce a narrative outcome that both players will like. The player might say, out of character, "Jack's player, would you be really upset if Jill kills this wolf here? Because I kind of feel like that's what Jill would do here, but I don't want to step on your moment." Then they can have an OOC discussion and come to some sort of resolution, as players, about how they want the scene to play out. If they players can't come to a resolution, the DM can mediate. This is how good players act at a gaming table.
But being a cooperative player at the table is not about agency, but courtesy. Most players cannot actually take agency away from each other, because players cannot rule one way or the other on each other's actions. But they can step on each other's toes and make the evening less fun for each other, if they aren't careful, and good players are careful not to step on each other's toes, and not to ruin the session for each other. Which requires them to talk to each other, and have OOC conversations to check in with each other and make sure everything is going OK.
I disagree on your interpretation of agency, but we both agree on the point of the post (which is the important thing) - if another player is in the process of doing something, don't overrule it/ruin it with your characters actions, even if it is something "your character would do". Start a conversation first and go from there.
I agree 100% that this is courtesy, and it seems to be missing from a lot of games I have been involved in. Maybe because people are not used to playing cooperatively? Who knows.
One tip I use in my games: I require more than “Me angry I attack” *player rolls dice*
Dice aren’t rolled until I ask for it as a DM. If the player says “I’m angry, I *want* to attack”… it gives me time to narrate what happens and allow for each side to emote what they would do in this situation. 99% of the time there is a stand down of one character and even some great roleplay from it.
Same also goes for people that assume if they yell “I attack!” in the middle of conversation, that they can just roll dice and get a surprise attack. I allow them to emote the raising of their weapon, and allow the party and NPCs to react… if the party does nothing to emote stop them, *then* I let them roll initiative and attack on their turn. There is no surprise attack in plain sight in my games, unless some deception or tactics are involved that have been prepared beforehand. And even then - the emotes happen first, then initiative, then (and only then), a potential surprise.
Bio is 100% percent correct on what agency is though. Your issue is real, but player agency is not the term to use here. It's more about the social contract of the game, the agreement between players to work together as a team. Not trying to be pedantic for no reason here - using these terms incorrectly causes a lot of confusion.
As Brewsky says, I use the ancient DM power of Time Manipulation in situations like this. Players try to jump in with actions like, "I get bored with the interrogation and slit his throat!" You say, "Gorg loses his patience and stalks towards the prisoner with blade bared. What do the rest of you do?" That's usually enough to get them to resolve the situation in character.
I was a bit confused by the OP. The poster has presented a topic "how to manage player conflict" in the DMs advice section when there's no management at all. You have a "bad example" where a player acts literally inconsiderate (the actual scenario happens among immature players and it's pretty easy for a. DM to intervene there), and a second one which is an example of interplayer mindfulness (though laid on a bit heavier than most tables I've played in or witnessed). How is hoping players see eye to eye and negotiate an outcome on their own guidance for DMs to manage conflict? Brewsky and scatterbraind's show this is a fairly easy ball for a DM to call, and will have to call if for whatever reason a player tries to perform an action at cross purposes with another player. A lot of DM's don't like players making contested rolls outside of in game scenarios where a friendly contest is being played. If a DM (and the rest of the table) sees players rolling the dice antagonistically or at cross purpose to another player, the DM is going to at minimum basically call a time out and see what can be resolved before dice checks are needed. "Is this the story we want to be telling?" is usually how I start the conversation.
BioW is spot on with their definition of player agency and its misuse by some players who are basically recycling Burt Reynolds in his Twilight Zone episode that was riffing on Six Character in Search of an Author and not realizing it was dinging actors who don't really understand method acting (deep track cut, but that's how I roll sometimes). Player agency isn't really a thing intra-player, precisely because a DM exists to either preemptively call foul or listen to a greivance and adjudicate the table.
Will just reiterate I think this is a poor example and all those who have said your example of player agency is wrong. Players have the agency to do whatever they want, and sometimes what they do makes perfect sense.
From the examples you give it appears you very much rely on players to describe there actions cinematically but as has been explained there is also an important role for the DM to step in and describe the scene in a way that makes most sense.
In my games I would say we have roughly a 25/75 Player DM split in this, so most of the time the player will say what they want to do, and I will then describe it thematically based on any dice rolls/other actions that take place. I ensure that players all have room to breathe and think.
On his turn, Jack, a ranger, declares he is going to use his action to see if he can calm the wolf and end the encounter in a non-lethally. He rolls an Animal Handling check and rolls well. The DM narrates that the wolf hesitates, confused. It hasn't backed down yet, but it also is not attacking (DM ruling: need two more successes to achieve 'make friends with wolf' and wolf will attack if fail twice).
Next is Jill the paladin's turn. Jill's character sees the wolf as a threat to humanity and wants to kill it.
Jack rolls the animal handling check, and yes 3 success are needed. I describe this to the group as you would, saying that Jack seems to be making some sort of connection to this creature.
If Jill then says, I want to kill it that is fine but, I will create the space to breathe, I will give room for the ranger to make a reaction, to this to say or do something and, the one thing you did not mention in your "ways to resolve" if there is a conflict then I will totally go to the dice, Jack can roll a persuasion and if they manage to beat the DC I set, or win a contested roll then Jill will stand down.
One thing I have seen ruin games a lot is player conflict. Not to be confused with character conflict (players enjoying their characters having a rivalry), player conflict is where one players actions reduce another players enjoyment of the game, often with the reason "it's what my character would do." This is never good.
Ignoring people who are just being disruptive for the sake of it, most of the time this happens because one player, intentionally or not, steps on another players agency.
I have found a way to navigate this in my games and I wanted to share in case it helps other people.
Example: Jack & Jill are fighting a wolf
On his turn, Jack, a ranger, declares he is going to use his action to see if he can calm the wolf and end the encounter in a non-lethally. He rolls an Animal Handling check and rolls well. The DM narrates that the wolf hesitates, confused. It hasn't backed down yet, but it also is not attacking (DM ruling: need two more successes to achieve 'make friends with wolf' and wolf will attack if fail twice).
Next is Jill the paladin's turn. Jill's character sees the wolf as a threat to humanity and wants to kill it.
Example of bad player behavior:
Jill declares 'I attack', rolls to attack. She may or may not kill the wolf, but has regardless destroyed Jack's previous skill success, and ended his chance to end the encounter peacefully. Jack-the-player gets upset as, in his imagination, he was already bonding with this creature and now he witnesses an animal akin to a pet, attacked by a fellow player. Jack will likely never trust Jill's character again and - more importantly - he will likely never trust Jill-the-player again. Jill is confused because in her mind she was just "doing what her character would do". She is not thinking about how she made the other player feel, or how she stepped on Jack's agency. The game stops being fun.
Examples of good player behavior:
Before she attacks, Jill makes it very clear what she is intending. She says "the paladin looks at the wolf and sees a rabid dog that needs to be put down lest it cause further misery. She slowly and carefully positions herself to make the killing blow while it is distracted by the ranger". Straight away this opens up her character's decision to discussion and what happens next depends on player communication. Some examples could be;
"the ranger makes eye contact with the paladin and nods sadly, he reaches out to the wolf to further distract it, with the hope that it's last memory will be of kindness"
"the ranger's eyes widen in shock and fear and he moves to throw himself between the wolf and the paladin" Jack says with a grin, loving the drama. He says that when the paladin's sword falls the ranger will scream "noooooooooooooo....!" and throw himself across the body of the wolf.
Jack immediately jumps in with "the ranger shoots the paladin a savage look. Don't. You. F***ing. Dare. And goes back to calming the animal". Jill adds "the paladin stays her blade - for now- ready and waiting for the beast to turn. I'll hold my action and attack if the wolf looks like it is going to."
These are all hugely different results, but they all have in common the way that when there was a potential character clash, the player said what they were going to do, not what they did. The difference here is huge;
The game continued to be fun
The important thing is that players don't get to impinge on other players agency.
That's the dice's job :)
Have the player describe their character's action and allow the other player(s) to describe how their character would react. All right. Pretty good idea. Have to wonder though, how much discussion do they get to do before the dice roll? In your example there was a fairly long exchange before anything was done. More characters would make this increase exponentially. Everyone wants their say. That's "Agency" after all. Sure, talking can be done freely, but at some point the game is slowing down a lot.
In the example, the fault seems to lie with Jack. He didn't describe his action first. How does Jill know what he's doing and why? She can guess, but all she knows is that he tried to calm the animal. Maybe he's trying to set things up for her? So great! On with the sword attack! She should even have Advantage there.
<Insert clever signature here>
.
Sorry - that was my bad. I have edited the post to make it clear that Jack did declare what he was doing
People keep using the term "player agency." I don't think the term means what they think it means.
Player agency describes your ability to have your character attempt to do what you think that character would do, at the point when your character would have the chance to do it. In a combat situation, this means that when Jack's turn comes up in the round, his player is allowed to have Jack act, within the rules of combat, how the player wants. Jack's player wanted to use animal handling to calm the wolf, and the DM allowed him to roll. The roll was a success, so the wolf is being calmed. This completes Jack's round, and then his turn is up.
Jack's agency does not include determining how Jill behaves on her turn. If Jill's player decides that Jill would, and should, attack the wolf, Jill has not taken Jack's agency away. His turn has already passed, and the DM has already allowed him to do what he wanted to do and he succeeded at the task based on the die rolls. If Jill kills the wolf on her turn, Jack still tamed it on his. The fact that Jack doesn't like what Jill decided to do does not take away Jack's agency (although, obviously, it may make both the character and the player unhappy).
For Jill to take away Jack's agency, she would have to be capable of preventing him from making the Animal Handling attempt in the first place. If, when Jack's player said, "I want to try to tame the wolf with AH," Jill's player had said, "DM, I am going to attack the wolf on my turn, so you shouldn't let him do that," and the DM had then said, "Sorry Jack, Jill wants to kill the wolf so you can't try to tame it" -- that would be taking Jack's agency away.
But that didn't happen here. Jack got to do exactly what he wanted, made his roll, and succeeded. Once his turn is over, it is not about his agency anymore - it is about Jill's.
Too many people these days seem to think that "player agency" is not about choices, but about outcomes. Jack made his choice, and got to act, exactly as he wanted to. But if Jill then beheads the wolf, Jack's player (and the character) is not pleased with the outcome. But players don't get to determine outcomes, only choices. Outcomes depend on other players and the DM, as well as die rolls, statistical tables in the book, and the like.
Now, all that said, I think that your overall point -- that players should not step on each other's toes -- is a good one. If Jill's player knows that Jack's player wants to use his cool ranger abilities to tame a wolf rather than kill it, then Jill's player should try to find a way to work with that to produce a narrative outcome that both players will like. The player might say, out of character, "Jack's player, would you be really upset if Jill kills this wolf here? Because I kind of feel like that's what Jill would do here, but I don't want to step on your moment." Then they can have an OOC discussion and come to some sort of resolution, as players, about how they want the scene to play out. If they players can't come to a resolution, the DM can mediate. This is how good players act at a gaming table.
But being a cooperative player at the table is not about agency, but courtesy. Most players cannot actually take agency away from each other, because players cannot rule one way or the other on each other's actions. But they can step on each other's toes and make the evening less fun for each other, if they aren't careful, and good players are careful not to step on each other's toes, and not to ruin the session for each other. Which requires them to talk to each other, and have OOC conversations to check in with each other and make sure everything is going OK.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
I disagree on your interpretation of agency, but we both agree on the point of the post (which is the important thing) - if another player is in the process of doing something, don't overrule it/ruin it with your characters actions, even if it is something "your character would do". Start a conversation first and go from there.
I agree 100% that this is courtesy, and it seems to be missing from a lot of games I have been involved in. Maybe because people are not used to playing cooperatively? Who knows.
I have luckily not had any issues with this in my own game in D&D.
I have had issues with it in online settings (MMORPGs), but that is another whole ball of wax.
WOTC lies. We know that WOTC lies. WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. We know that WOTC knows that we know that WOTC lies. And still they lie.
Because of the above (a paraphrase from Orwell) I no longer post to the forums -- PM me if you need help or anything.
One tip I use in my games: I require more than “Me angry I attack” *player rolls dice*
Dice aren’t rolled until I ask for it as a DM. If the player says “I’m angry, I *want* to attack”… it gives me time to narrate what happens and allow for each side to emote what they would do in this situation. 99% of the time there is a stand down of one character and even some great roleplay from it.
Same also goes for people that assume if they yell “I attack!” in the middle of conversation, that they can just roll dice and get a surprise attack. I allow them to emote the raising of their weapon, and allow the party and NPCs to react… if the party does nothing to emote stop them, *then* I let them roll initiative and attack on their turn. There is no surprise attack in plain sight in my games, unless some deception or tactics are involved that have been prepared beforehand. And even then - the emotes happen first, then initiative, then (and only then), a potential surprise.
Bio is 100% percent correct on what agency is though. Your issue is real, but player agency is not the term to use here. It's more about the social contract of the game, the agreement between players to work together as a team. Not trying to be pedantic for no reason here - using these terms incorrectly causes a lot of confusion.
As Brewsky says, I use the ancient DM power of Time Manipulation in situations like this. Players try to jump in with actions like, "I get bored with the interrogation and slit his throat!" You say, "Gorg loses his patience and stalks towards the prisoner with blade bared. What do the rest of you do?" That's usually enough to get them to resolve the situation in character.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I was a bit confused by the OP. The poster has presented a topic "how to manage player conflict" in the DMs advice section when there's no management at all. You have a "bad example" where a player acts literally inconsiderate (the actual scenario happens among immature players and it's pretty easy for a. DM to intervene there), and a second one which is an example of interplayer mindfulness (though laid on a bit heavier than most tables I've played in or witnessed). How is hoping players see eye to eye and negotiate an outcome on their own guidance for DMs to manage conflict? Brewsky and scatterbraind's show this is a fairly easy ball for a DM to call, and will have to call if for whatever reason a player tries to perform an action at cross purposes with another player. A lot of DM's don't like players making contested rolls outside of in game scenarios where a friendly contest is being played. If a DM (and the rest of the table) sees players rolling the dice antagonistically or at cross purpose to another player, the DM is going to at minimum basically call a time out and see what can be resolved before dice checks are needed. "Is this the story we want to be telling?" is usually how I start the conversation.
BioW is spot on with their definition of player agency and its misuse by some players who are basically recycling Burt Reynolds in his Twilight Zone episode that was riffing on Six Character in Search of an Author and not realizing it was dinging actors who don't really understand method acting (deep track cut, but that's how I roll sometimes). Player agency isn't really a thing intra-player, precisely because a DM exists to either preemptively call foul or listen to a greivance and adjudicate the table.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Will just reiterate I think this is a poor example and all those who have said your example of player agency is wrong. Players have the agency to do whatever they want, and sometimes what they do makes perfect sense.
From the examples you give it appears you very much rely on players to describe there actions cinematically but as has been explained there is also an important role for the DM to step in and describe the scene in a way that makes most sense.
In my games I would say we have roughly a 25/75 Player DM split in this, so most of the time the player will say what they want to do, and I will then describe it thematically based on any dice rolls/other actions that take place. I ensure that players all have room to breathe and think.
Jack rolls the animal handling check, and yes 3 success are needed. I describe this to the group as you would, saying that Jack seems to be making some sort of connection to this creature.
If Jill then says, I want to kill it that is fine but, I will create the space to breathe, I will give room for the ranger to make a reaction, to this to say or do something and, the one thing you did not mention in your "ways to resolve" if there is a conflict then I will totally go to the dice, Jack can roll a persuasion and if they manage to beat the DC I set, or win a contested roll then Jill will stand down.