Do Random Tables Reduce Player Agency?

[MGibster]

Sometimes I feel as though we overthink things during these discussions. Why would we not assume the DM explained why the shorter route is more dangerous? What would be the point of telling the players the shorter route is more dangerous without providing them with a reason? Because in my experience, PCs won't hesitate to ask why this route is potentially filled with more danger so the DM is going to have an answer. The answer could be as simple as "Lord Tanith's forces monitor these roads closely and they will be difficult to avoid."

 

[kenada]

Sometimes I feel as though we overthink things during these discussions. Why would we not assume the DM explained why the shorter route is more dangerous? What would be the point of telling the players the shorter route is more dangerous without providing them with a reason? Because in my experience, PCs won't hesitate to ask why this route is potentially filled with more danger so the DM is going to have an answer. The answer could be as simple as "Lord Tanith's forces monitor these roads closely and they will be difficult to avoid."

The situation given in the OP indicates the PCs have only the “barest information” about potential difficulties. I think what you say makes sense, and I’d want to obtain more information to make a better decision. Otherwise, I think one’s ability to make a good decision is pretty limited.

The issue isn’t the use of random tables but the lack of information. I don’t think that’s a natural consequence of using random tables. In this case, it was a choice made by the hypothetical GM in this situation. I would be more transparent than that, which doesn’t even necessarily require mechanical transparency (though I generally prefer it). There are ways of communicating that information the PCs would understand.

 

[Mannahnin]

Ok, so going back to the OP, that's talking about exploring a largely undefined area. The DM has some tables to procedurally generate content, but at the point of providing this "barest information" he doesn't HAVE much info to give the players. It sounds like all he's determined so far is what we know- one route is quicker and more dangerous, the other is slower and less hazardous.

In that case, I would agree with Kenada that it's not the tables that are limiting agency, it's the lack of info. So, if the DM is using those tables to generate content, it seems wise to give the players the opportunity to dig for more info about potential hazards, and if they do so, use the tables in advance to generate the content that they can find rumors of. This way the DM still gets the benefit/time-savings of procedurally generating the content, and the players still get the ability to garner information and make more informed decisions.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Procedures do not create or destroy player agency, agency is negated by the DM ignoring or negating player decisions

 

[Umbran]

Procedures do not create or destroy player agency, agency is negated by the DM ignoring or negating player decisions

I would say tools do not create or destroy agency. Procedures can eliminate agency, by removing the space for players to make informed decisions, or by intrinsically rolling over player choices.

 

[Reynard]

I just wanted to say I have really enjoyed reading this discussion. The post was made based on the idlest of thoughts. Literally, as I was looking over Shadowdark in preparation for a game, I thought. "Huh, I wonder if random rolls for stuff has an impact on what we generally label player agency" and didn't think too much more deeply about it beyond what I wrote in the OP.

I agree largely with those that have said that the PCs can enhance their own agency by asking for more information (in character). I also like the idea of using frequency on the random encounter/event table to be a guide to answering "research" type questions.

Usually, if the PCs are going on a journey that will require multiple encounter/event rolls, once they set out I roll all the checks at once and tabulate the results, telling everyone to take 5. I can then present the journey in a fun and efficient way that feels "designed" but is still improvised and random.

 

[Umbran]

I agree largely with those that have said that the PCs can enhance their own agency by asking for more information (in character).

And that's also where our procedures can become problems. How do the players know when to ask for more information?

Procedures should include some amount of telegraphing, such that players know they are in a space where their decisions have shifted from colorful narrative forming (that's not dismissive - colorful narrative is an important part of play) into those that are strategically or tactically relevant.

Failure to telegraph, while punishing poor decision making, leads to either player frustration or "pixel bitching" to compensate.

 

[Reynard]

And that's also where our procedures can become problems. How do the players know when to ask for more information?

I legitimately don't understand the question.

"You have been told the forest route is faster but more dangerous, while the road is longer but safer."

"Okay. Huh. Why?"

"Why don't you guys make gather info checks."

And so on.

Have we ever expected players to have to know when they are allowed to ask questions? It doesn't seem like a problem I have ever encountered.

 

[Celebrim]

Does the use of random tables in play reduce player agency in gameplay?

No.

I am specifically talking about generative tables used to provide inspiration or even outright game elements to the GM when the PCs explore an otherwise undefined area.

Allow me to use an example: the PCs are heading from Southron to Northlund and can choose to take either the long but safe road or the faster but more dangerous road.

Let's say that before either road was taken you'd used some methodology to design the encounters on the road. It could have been random or it could have been fiat, but there is something planned for both roads. If the players have no means of judging whether to go left or right then they have no agency. It might as well be a coin flip.

A carefully crafted set of encounters would provide no more or no less agency than random ones. But in this case, simply knowing one is long and safer and another faster but more dangerous is giving the players some agency. They might not know exactly what will happen on either road, but they are making something of an informed choice.

This is discussed in my essay on railroading.

Note that it's not necessarily possible to give the players full agency in any sort of simulation. We don't have full agency in the world. We can't always choose what happens to us or craft the life we want with infinite ability to enact or volition. So we shouldn't expect players in a world to have limitless agency either.

In the case of the players doing something unplanned and going off the map, random encounters give them more agency than improvised fiat encounters would because the GM is removing some of their capacity to metagame against the unplanned choice. If you respond to the player's unplanned actions by pure fiat, there is always the risk that your improvisation will be motivated to metagame against them and not let that choice work. If you put some sort of constraint on your response either through randomness or demographic limits on your available resources, or both, then the available player agency increases.

 

[FrogReaver]

I had a thought and couldn't find an appropriate existing thread.

Does the use of random tables in play reduce player agency in gameplay? I am specifically talking about generative tables used to provide inspiration or even outright game elements to the GM when the PCs explore an otherwise undefined area.

Allow me to use an example: the PCs are heading from Southron to Northlund and can choose to take either the long but safe road or the faster but more dangerous road. Importantly, they don't know the mechanics behind those two road choices.

The rules (GM developed or otherwise) say that the chances of a negative encounter are double on the fast road -- but literally nothing else is defined before rolling.

If the PCs only have the barest information about potential difficulties -- thd fast road is "more dangerous" whatever that means-- are they being robbed of agency specifically as compared to a more carefully crafted route and potential dangers?

Let's assume that the description given to the PCs is equivalent, but yhe potential table roll results are much more varied from a challenge perspective than the designed routes.

What do you think?

For me no. The decision to choose a faster but more dangerous route or less dangerous but slower route is not meaningful to me of itself - might be to some though.

Obviously that’s provided both offer arriving at my destination in ample time.

However, there’s a piece these scenarios never seem to consider. By choosing a route now I’m exploring and in the worst case on future adventures or scenarios I may can then utilize the information I learned from whichever path I chose.

Not all rpg play is in service of the present.