the Jester
Legend
This doesn't look to violate player agency to me. They are free to make a choice that has a meaningful impact on the game, even if they don't know exactly how that impact manifests.
If player agency= the players' choice prompts the GM to say something different from what they might otherwise have said, then almost any action resolution procedure is consistent with player agency!This doesn't look to violate player agency to me. They are free to make a choice that has a meaningful impact on the game, even if they don't know exactly how that impact manifests.
You are right. I did not say so in the OP, but the presumption can be that there is some sort of time pressure. But part and parcel with that is that there are potential lasting consequences from.encounters. so if there is a cost to arriving late for the coronation (or whatever) but also a potential cost of "losing" a dangerous fight, there are actual choices to be made even if the players don't know the exact probabilities of various potential outcomes..If we're talking about agency in respect of meaningful game outcomes, then then choosing fast-and-more-dangerou road A over slow-and-safer B is meaningless until we know what's at stake in the choice.
If the players have the same encounters preselected regardless of the route they take, the DM is removing their agency. If there is no way to learn more about the choice between the two roads, the DM is reducing (but not removing) their agency. If the pcs are able to research/divine/whatever to learn more before making their choice, their agency is being... honored? Enhanced?If player agency= the players' choice prompts the GM to say something different from what they might otherwise have said, then almost any action resolution procedure is consistent with player agency!
No. Of course not.Does the use of random tables in play reduce player agency in gameplay?
My response to this is set out in posts 10 and 12. I still don't see how the players have significant agency until more information is provided, so they can apply some sort of rational decision rule.You are right. I did not say so in the OP, but the presumption can be that there is some sort of time pressure. But part and parcel with that is that there are potential lasting consequences from.encounters. so if there is a cost to arriving late for the coronation (or whatever) but also a potential cost of "losing" a dangerous fight, there are actual choices to be made even if the players don't know the exact probabilities of various potential outcomes.
So, to be clear, are you saying that the players have to know what the probable encounters might be for the choice to be meaningful?As presented the choice of long but safe road or the faster but more dangerous road is pretty neutral and does not in itself rob players of agency.
Now if you decided that safe road was a Royal highway through apple orchards inhabited by friendly pixies and a 1 in 20 chance of meeting a grumpy goblin v the dangerous road through a fetid swamp with a 50% chance of being hunted by the resident black dragon then you have denied players some important information, but thats a design choice even with a random table
Why, if he rolls twice for the more dangerous route for each roll on the less dangerous route? what is the effective difference?If the information the PCs get is only that one path is likely to be less dangerous than the other I don't see how rolling on the appropriate table can be an impingement on player agency. The GM rolling on the same table no matter what path the PCs take would probably be.