And which we may still see. Yes, yes, I know your vaporware argument. I just don't buy it.
Convincing 4th Edition players to consider 5th Edition
And which we may still see. Yes, yes, I know your vaporware argument. I just don't buy it.
JamesonCourage
Adventurer
I'm not extremely well acquainted with 4e, but when I brought this up earlier, I wasn't really shown how 4e did this to any real extent outside of combat (through dailies, etc.). But, maybe I missed something (entirely possible).
What system does 4e have that allows players the ability to define their characters reliably, and arrange for dramatic moments for them to add to the story (that isn't reliant upon DM approval)?
To my knowledge, this mostly comes in the form of skills and skill challenges, and, as far as I know, the skill DCs in 4e are set by the DM (as is determining if a skill can be used in a skill challenge, generally). Doesn't this mean that outside of combat (where dailies and etc. are used), 4e still relies heavily on DM fiat, which would put "a huge burden on the DM and rob the players of the ability to define their characters, arrange dramatic moments for them that add to the developing story."
Again, unless I'm missing something (which I very well could be). I'm interested in your take on the dynamic, player-empowered non-combat capabilities that players can reliably use to shape the fiction without DM approval (which means, too, that DCs should be reliably defined with they're to be interacted with regularly). Basically, where are you coming from on this front? I'm curious. As always, play what you like
Aenghus
Explorer
There are different sorts of "player agency", it can exist in different layers of the game. The macro or strategic layer is often what's meant by player agency, but it's not the only one.
In earlier versions of the game, any actions beyond the most basic required negotiation with the referee. Some players enjoy constant negotiation like that, others don't, and I'm in the latter category. Also, the bigger a difference between the viewpoints of the referee and player the more fractious and less fun negotiation is, and the more likely the result of negotation will be negative. Repeated negative experiences of this sort result in reduced player agency at the micro scale, as players stop trying to improvise and settle on a few "safe" options.
Do the mechanics and rules represent the game world in an essentially accurate way or just loosely approximate the game world subject to the rulings and whims of the referee? The latter can way can work well if all involved have the same instincts and see the game world and "how things work" in the same way. In my experience this is often not the case, so I prefer the former version, which does reduce the frustrating subjectiveness of description a little, which for me improves my agency as a player by being better able to understand the game world as portrayed without constant niggling disagreements and mutual incomprension, and affect it in ways all involved can agree on.
(Obviously at some point people are incompatible and shouldn't play in the same game as they see the world too differently to communicate effectively. But I think most people have some flexibility and can compromise to create an enjoyable game far more than for instance the internet suggests).
What I find 4e is good at is providing improved player agency at the micro or tactical layer. Powers are transparent and reliable in a way previous editions didn't provide, producing an effect in most cases that isn't arbitrarily negated by resistances and immunities, or the prejudices of the referee. Powers in a way act as contracts guaranteeing player agency in small packets, a guarantee they can do something more complex than a basic attack without having to negotiate for it or bargain with the GM. In previous editions of the game spellcasters were the classes who got the bulk of such guarantees, and this is one reason I preferred spellcasters in earlier editions of the game.
I saw lots of other players making poor choices when it came to improvised actions, regularly choosing options with minimal success chances and/or horrible drawbacks that the referee offfered them based on the rules and their personal tastes. This also damages player agency. Recent coverage of the next edition indicates that these sort of flawed mechanics may return, and certainly isn't encouraging me.
In earlier versions of the game, any actions beyond the most basic required negotiation with the referee. Some players enjoy constant negotiation like that, others don't, and I'm in the latter category. Also, the bigger a difference between the viewpoints of the referee and player the more fractious and less fun negotiation is, and the more likely the result of negotation will be negative. Repeated negative experiences of this sort result in reduced player agency at the micro scale, as players stop trying to improvise and settle on a few "safe" options.
Do the mechanics and rules represent the game world in an essentially accurate way or just loosely approximate the game world subject to the rulings and whims of the referee? The latter can way can work well if all involved have the same instincts and see the game world and "how things work" in the same way. In my experience this is often not the case, so I prefer the former version, which does reduce the frustrating subjectiveness of description a little, which for me improves my agency as a player by being better able to understand the game world as portrayed without constant niggling disagreements and mutual incomprension, and affect it in ways all involved can agree on.
(Obviously at some point people are incompatible and shouldn't play in the same game as they see the world too differently to communicate effectively. But I think most people have some flexibility and can compromise to create an enjoyable game far more than for instance the internet suggests).
What I find 4e is good at is providing improved player agency at the micro or tactical layer. Powers are transparent and reliable in a way previous editions didn't provide, producing an effect in most cases that isn't arbitrarily negated by resistances and immunities, or the prejudices of the referee. Powers in a way act as contracts guaranteeing player agency in small packets, a guarantee they can do something more complex than a basic attack without having to negotiate for it or bargain with the GM. In previous editions of the game spellcasters were the classes who got the bulk of such guarantees, and this is one reason I preferred spellcasters in earlier editions of the game.
I saw lots of other players making poor choices when it came to improvised actions, regularly choosing options with minimal success chances and/or horrible drawbacks that the referee offfered them based on the rules and their personal tastes. This also damages player agency. Recent coverage of the next edition indicates that these sort of flawed mechanics may return, and certainly isn't encouraging me.
Last edited:
Tony Vargas
Legend
4e contributed to 'player agency' with dailies, which included attacks and in-combat utilities, as you say, and by making flavor text more mutable (which just continued the trends started with 2e kits and 3e description of characters and their gear being less mechanics-dependent). It did not do nearly as much as it could have out-of-combat, though. There were some out-of-combat utilities - the Ranger's 'Crucial Advice' probably being one of the more obvious non-spell examples (there are numerous out-of-combat-aplicable utility spells, but I'm emphasizing where it got it right across all classes).
So, 5e could do with a lot more of that - player-defineable flavor, pc customizeability, dramatic limitted-use abilities both in and out of combat for all classes - and also with a good deal less /dependence/ upon DM fiat. (Though, not being dependent on it in no way prevents DMs from exercising their perogative to override the rules)
The DC have decent guidelines, so the burden on the DM is small. There /are/ some utilities that give some classes a bit of agency in skill challegnes, like all get in combat. 5e should much more strongly emphasize such options when balancing the classes, so that everybody contributes & has agency in all three pillars.
Again, unless I'm missing something (which I very well could be). I'm interested in your take on the dynamic, player-empowered non-combat capabilities that players can reliably use to shape the fiction without DM approval (which means, too, that DCs should be reliably defined with they're to be interacted with regularly). Basically, where are you coming from on this front? I'm curious. As always, play what you like
[/QUOTE]Not addressed to me, but I keep seeing DM fiat and DM approval used like dirty words.
To many of us, that's not necessarily a negative and allows more player agency than a vast, rigidly defined set of circumstances and options for those circumstances. For me, it's always been easier to add complexity than to take something out, hence modules adding exactly what you describe for you and those like you to a streamlined core for those with positive player-DM relations would work for everyone (generic everyone, obviously not everyone will like the core, modules or anything else).
JamesonCourage
Adventurer
About what I thought so far.
As far as I can tell, the Crucial Advice power basically lets you make someone else reroll a skill they just failed with a bonus equal to their Wisdom modifier? That's a nice power, and definitely seems helpful outside of combat (though skills are still a weak point for "player agency" in 4e, from my view, as the DC and skill application is still basically all decided by the DM).
Generally speaking, this is why I like rules-heavy systems. I prefer the rules being open and displayed to most players, and their abilities reliable, so that they know what their chances are (if they know the system) and what risks they're taking (from no chance to sure thing). It's why I wrote this in my "Running a Game" chapter for my RPG under a section titled "Fairness":[sblock]So, the question is, why will some people easily accept a rule in the book, but not a decision made by GM fiat?
That's a good question, and I'll do my best to address it. Many people rely on the rules as a form of support, be it player or GM.
As a player, it lets me know what I can reliably do. If I know that attacking requires me to roll a base attack + Strength roll, and I need to hit their armor class, then I can plan around that. I can attempt to attain a higher Strength, or a higher base attack, or a masterwork weapon, or feats that boost my roll. It lets me know how I can craft my character to play out the way I want it to. For example, if I had in mind a character who is this huge brute that hits people with a giant axe, I probably envision a high Strength character, possibly with a high Constitution. Now, if I found out (through a house rule) that Dexterity is the attribute that covers whether or not I can hit someone, than my concept changes to include a high Dexterity, so I can make use of my giant axe. These written rules give players a strong starting point when determining the mechanical manifestation of the concept of their character. If their mechanical character does not match their conceptual character very much, than they often find themselves distanced from the character, losing that special connection, immersion, or whatever it is that makes that character special and spark in their mind.
For a GM, having the rules to draw on is incredibly comforting when you are learning. After you have played with the rules for a while, you can see the strengths and weaknesses of the system. Having rules in place allows you to cite them when a player disagrees, even if they think it is a bad rule. Of course, it is true that the more you know about something, the more you can break the rules you were taught at the beginning. So, with more experience, it's much easier to break these rules and have an enjoyable experience, but I think that's a fairly universal rule.
As a player, the rules are there for guidance, and as a source of reliable material. You cannot reliably use GM fiat, for even an amazing GM must come up with the mechanical roll for you to use on the fly. You cannot know what the rolling mechanic will be any more than he does. Take, for example, a maneuver to dodge and have two enemies swing at one another. If I wanted to do that, and the maneuver had no mechanics, than I could have no way of knowing that you'd rule it a certain way, for even you have not decided what the ruling is yet (as the situation is only now coming up). However, if it is a set mechanical maneuver, I know I can reliably use that mechanic, and I can temper a character concept by careful use of reliable rules.
As a GM, they are there as a source of incredible guidance, giving you example after example of how the system envisions Dexterity being used, attack rolls being used, Constitution checks being used. The rules help you see the spirit of the game. Rules help indicate the style of game the rules were created for.
When a GM begins to use his granted power to overrule a player, I personally do not immediately buck against it. I'll accept it. If it creates an inconsistent or displeasing game experience, I'll voice my concern, and I'll drop the game if it continues. I will not try to take away that right from the GM, as he has the right to run his game the way he wishes. As a player, I think I should look for someone a little more in line with what I enjoy. Since, really, it's all about enjoyment. And that's the crux of the matter, really. It's about mutual enjoyment, and it's about a consistent gaming world where reliable mechanics are incredibly useful. That's really it. I break or bend rules all the time, and I attempt to do so in a consistent way. Players are expecting consistency in the rules, and the more decisions they can make without direct GM input, the more in control of their own characters they feel.[/sblock]
I think this depends on how you run the game. If everything "levels" with you, then yes, the DCs are easier ("this is a Hard task, and we're level 17, so the DC is X"). However, what if you approach the game more like Neonchameleon (I think) does, where climbing a mundane tree might be a moderate task for level 1's (in his game)? Who decides what level a task is, and what difficulty for that level? The DM. This gives an awful lot of power to the DM, and players have to hope that he remains consistent in his rulings. They have to ask him "what's the DC to do this" if they want to have a good idea of their odds, and then the DM needs to make up what the DC is. This is close to the "Mother May I" style of game that many people feel undesirable (and something that pushes against "player agency").
We'll see how it goes, but while 4e had some "player agency" mechanics, it didn't have a comprehensive system (to my knowledge) that 5e could lift heavily from. While combat is a very strong component of D&D, I'd like to see the other "pillars" expanded upon, and something much stronger than what 4e had (or 3.X, 2e, 1e, etc.) put in its place. Just me, though. As always, play what you like
Aenghus
Explorer
Talking only of good DMs and bad DMs excludes the middle of average DMs, who I think are in the majority. And "good" rules can help reduce the workload of DMs and the number of small-scale decisions they need to make, freeing them to focus on the bigger picture, and offer reasonable and viable options to players as opposed to trap options, or options where the flavour text doesnt match what the mechanics actually do.
I find increased reliance on DM fiat increases the stress and workload of refereeing significantly. I certainly felt this increased decision stress in the recent playtest.
Secondly, its a communication issue. Referees and players can have genuine misunderstandings and disagreements as to how things work in the real world or the game world, without either party being a "bad DM" or a "bad player". A solid set of rules can improve communication and reduce misunderstandings, and provide a system of arbitration in the case of disagreements that helps illuminate or solve the problem and provides more information to help the DM make a decision.
I find increased reliance on DM fiat increases the stress and workload of refereeing significantly. I certainly felt this increased decision stress in the recent playtest.
Secondly, its a communication issue. Referees and players can have genuine misunderstandings and disagreements as to how things work in the real world or the game world, without either party being a "bad DM" or a "bad player". A solid set of rules can improve communication and reduce misunderstandings, and provide a system of arbitration in the case of disagreements that helps illuminate or solve the problem and provides more information to help the DM make a decision.
Campbell
Relaxed Intensity
I think what gets lost in discussions of player agency vs. fiat is that in RPGs the rules as played are whats important. Role-playing games are incredibly fluid and your typical gaming group abides by nearly as many unwritten rules as written ones. Once the principles behind fiat decisions become consistent they are pretty much unwritten rules. If I know the mind of my DM perfectly than his fiat is just like a formalized rule to me.
Although its presence in D&D is more muted than elsewhere player fiat also comes into the picture. How much influence do players have to define things not explicitly covered by the rules? Can I define my character's background? How about age? Social class? Contacts? Do I have narration rights when hit for 8 damage? What about when I fail a diplomacy check? What about when someone my character is engaging in conversation with succeeds on a Bluff check?
The issue of player agency vs. GM agency vs. formalized rules is an interesting and murky one. GM and player agency are directly opposed in the sense that the more you have of one the less you generally have of the other with game rules and social contracts acting to formalize who has agency in certain circumstances. Of course the degree of agency players, GMs, and the rules receive at a given table is highly dependent on the scope and objective of play and will be defined by the play group as much as by the rules. Rules are most important important when it comes to new play groups or when the same group plays dramatically different games. They provide a starting point wherein groups will start to define where they sit. Rules matter, but the rules that matter are the ones actually being used at the table of which fiat is a component.
I recently had an interesting experience in a GURPS game I was playing in. My character was possessed by a demon (everyone at the table knew), but rather than the GM taking control of my character I retained agency to my character's actions with the caveat that I had to play out that the demon wanted to kill my character's companions. My response was to start out using ineffectual attacks at first and ramping up to lethal force as time went on to represent that the demon was taking more control. I also choose not to target one of the PCs my character had a strong friendship with. By leaving me in control as a player I was able to make important about my character. Still, I lacked the agency to ignore the effects of the possession.
For me the above example demonstrates my ideal level of player agency. I needed to make hard choices when faced with constraints. Still I maintained some control over the events of the fiction while not being able to neatly resolve the conflict. Other peoples tolerances for varying degrees of player agency will of course differ dramatically.
Although its presence in D&D is more muted than elsewhere player fiat also comes into the picture. How much influence do players have to define things not explicitly covered by the rules? Can I define my character's background? How about age? Social class? Contacts? Do I have narration rights when hit for 8 damage? What about when I fail a diplomacy check? What about when someone my character is engaging in conversation with succeeds on a Bluff check?
The issue of player agency vs. GM agency vs. formalized rules is an interesting and murky one. GM and player agency are directly opposed in the sense that the more you have of one the less you generally have of the other with game rules and social contracts acting to formalize who has agency in certain circumstances. Of course the degree of agency players, GMs, and the rules receive at a given table is highly dependent on the scope and objective of play and will be defined by the play group as much as by the rules. Rules are most important important when it comes to new play groups or when the same group plays dramatically different games. They provide a starting point wherein groups will start to define where they sit. Rules matter, but the rules that matter are the ones actually being used at the table of which fiat is a component.
I recently had an interesting experience in a GURPS game I was playing in. My character was possessed by a demon (everyone at the table knew), but rather than the GM taking control of my character I retained agency to my character's actions with the caveat that I had to play out that the demon wanted to kill my character's companions. My response was to start out using ineffectual attacks at first and ramping up to lethal force as time went on to represent that the demon was taking more control. I also choose not to target one of the PCs my character had a strong friendship with. By leaving me in control as a player I was able to make important about my character. Still, I lacked the agency to ignore the effects of the possession.
For me the above example demonstrates my ideal level of player agency. I needed to make hard choices when faced with constraints. Still I maintained some control over the events of the fiction while not being able to neatly resolve the conflict. Other peoples tolerances for varying degrees of player agency will of course differ dramatically.
Tony Vargas
Legend
From a game-design point of view, they are. When you write a rule that says "you can do such and such with DM approval" what you're really saying as a designer is "I couldn't be bothered to get this rule right, so your DM will fix it for you." From the point of view of the DM, they're a pain, because they mean more work for the same payoff. From a player's PoV, they mean you better /really/ trust your DM, so be as selective as you can about whom you play with.
None of that's good.
Tony Vargas
Legend
I'm not sure what you mean by comprehensive system. I'd call it more of a foundational assumption or axiom. This is a game. Yes, it's about the players.
Absolutely. All the classes in all the pillars deserve the same treatment 4e gave them combat.
Similar Threads
