Do Random Tables Reduce Player Agency?

[Reynard]

A random table takes away from the Players Agency as it takes away the DMs Red Carpet.

In a high agency game, often with no random table use, the GM has the high duty of giving the players agency...by rolling out the red carpet to make sure the players agency happens. So when they players make an Official Choice of Player Agency, like the players pick the long, but safe road, then the GM alters game reality to make that happen. The GM says "oh well it's a long but safe travel" and nothing bad happens. The players are happy, the GM is happy, and the game rolls on. And in this game, even IF the GM uses the random encounter table and rolls a deadly encounter, the GM has the will and power to just ignore it. While in high service to the Players Agency, the GM is free to ignore any rolls, results or rules that might effect Player Agency.

In the low agency game, the GM does nothing to give the players any agency at all. So the players chocie is meangingless. And this is only taken to an exteme if a random table is used. As anyone who has ever rolled dice should know....you can roll any number anytime. So sure the "long road is safer" as it only has a "small chance" . But, escentually that is meaningless. Sure there is a "low chance" of an encounter happening, but it does not matter much in realty. The GM rolls, and gets a 20. So the deadly encounter happens on the "safe" path. And in lots of games, the GM is a powerless player and follows the results of rolls, results and rules even If they effect player agency. "sorry guys, the dragons of doom attack your characters on the 'safe path', damage is 100 each...again sorry, but the rules are forcing me to do this. Gotta play the game by the rules!"

That's interesting. So to make choosing the safe path a meaningful decision, does that mean nothing bad can potentially result on the safe path? What if the dangerous path is only hard and deadly encounters, and the safe path is only easy and moderate encounters? What if bad luck makes an easy encounter into a TPK? Is the GM required to fudge and save the PCs because they chose the safe path and therefore any negative outcome, regardless of source, means their agency was stolen?

 

[bloodtide]

That's interesting. So to make choosing the safe path a meaningful decision, does that mean nothing bad can potentially result on the safe path?

Well, not exactly.

Though a LOT of gamers would say so. They will always equate "the right way", "the right choice" or the "safe path" to be "nothing bad will happen". Though many will say the defense of they don't want bad things to Never Ever happen....just once in a very, very, very, very, very long while. And if it was to happen say twice in one hour they would go crazy, complain, stop playing, leave or such.

In a game with True Randomness, anything can happen. Something might have a low chance of happening, but never zero.

What if the dangerous path is only hard and deadly encounters, and the safe path is only easy and moderate encounters? What if bad luck makes an easy encounter into a TPK? Is the GM required to fudge and save the PCs because they chose the safe path and therefore any negative outcome, regardless of source, means their agency was stolen?

For a True Random game, a hard/deadly encounter would still be possible even on the "safer path": always a chance, but never zero.

A Red Carpet DM will do anything for the players...roll out the red carpet for them. This type of GM often believes in High Player Agency, so they have no problem fudge things or altering game reality in service to their goal. And the goal of such a GM is to give the players the agency they chose.

 

[Reynard]

For a True Random game, a hard/deadly encounter would still be possible even on the "safer path": always a chance, but never zero.

That is not an answer to the question that I asked.

 

[bloodtide]

That is not an answer to the question that I asked.

Yes, a GM wanting the players to have player agency is required to save the PCs from anything, so the players agency is not stolen by bad luck or rolls.

 

[Reynard]

Yes, a GM wanting the players to have player agency is required to save the PCs from anything, so the players agency is not stolen by bad luck or rolls.

That is, IMO, ridiculous

 

[Fenris-77]

I don't think I understand the question. Random tables are a GM tool and generally to help democratize certain sorts of GM decision making. I don't really see how they have anything to do with player agency. Perhaps I'm missing something...

 

[Reynard]

I don't think I understand the question. Random tables are a GM tool and generally to help democratize certain sorts of GM decision making. I don't really see how they have anything to do with player agency. Perhaps I'm missing something...

Try reading the thread, because a lot of folks have expounded on the subject quite thoughtfully.

 

[Retros_x]

A random table takes away from the Players Agency as it takes away the DMs Red Carpet.

In a high agency game, often with no random table use, the GM has the high duty of giving the players agency...by rolling out the red carpet to make sure the players agency happens. So when they players make an Official Choice of Player Agency, like the players pick the long, but safe road, then the GM alters game reality to make that happen. The GM says "oh well it's a long but safe travel" and nothing bad happens. The players are happy, the GM is happy, and the game rolls on. And in this game, even IF the GM uses the random encounter table and rolls a deadly encounter, the GM has the will and power to just ignore it. While in high service to the Players Agency, the GM is free to ignore any rolls, results or rules that might effect Player Agency.

In the low agency game, the GM does nothing to give the players any agency at all. So the players chocie is meangingless. And this is only taken to an exteme if a random table is used. As anyone who has ever rolled dice should know....you can roll any number anytime. So sure the "long road is safer" as it only has a "small chance" . But, escentually that is meaningless. Sure there is a "low chance" of an encounter happening, but it does not matter much in realty. The GM rolls, and gets a 20. So the deadly encounter happens on the "safe" path. And in lots of games, the GM is a powerless player and follows the results of rolls, results and rules even If they effect player agency. "sorry guys, the dragons of doom attack your characters on the 'safe path', damage is 100 each...again sorry, but the rules are forcing me to do this. Gotta play the game by the rules!"

I am not sure if I understood you correctly, but arent you basically saying that the random table has nothing to do with player agency at all, because you can run a high agency game or a low agency game, but its not affected by use of random tables?

 

[Fenris-77]

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?

So even when I quote the OP and having read most of the thread, I still don't really get the point of the question. I'll set aside the variance on the tables for a second. Agency indexes the extent to which the game honours player decision making in an authentic and diegetically impactful ways - so player decisions matter, they change things, the game state responds in ways that makes sense. To 'reduce' player agency you would need to lower the extent to which player decision making has authentic and predictable consequences. The random versus more designed options outlined above don't seem to make that grade. The players are making a very common RPG choice - fast and dangerous travel versus slow and safer travel. Whether or not the consequences there are designed or randomly determined if the general set of outcomes matches the information the players had to make the decision then their agency hasn't been lowered. As caveat, 'matches' here is a pretty broad idea and would depend quite a bit on specifics that the example doesn't provide. That said, there's a bunch of nuance involved as well.

If the random tables, especially the 'dangerous' one the extent to which the route was described as dangerous, then maybe that counts. Or the two tables aren't different enough, that would probably count too. To come back to my last point above, the idea of matching consequences to decision making is a matter of having what happens stay inside the range of 'what makes sense' based on the very specific situation the decision was made in. A quick decision made in haste carried less need to match the information that influenced the decision. However, the more the players know, or the more they find out about those routes, the more the consequences need to honour that informed decision. Generally though, I don't think that well designed random tables have any impact of player agency, although it is perhaps trivial to say that badly designed random tables are the opposite.

 

[bloodtide]

That is, IMO, ridiculous

I agree, but a lot of GM do it.

I am not sure if I understood you correctly, but arent you basically saying that the random table has nothing to do with player agency at all, because you can run a high agency game or a low agency game, but its not affected by use of random tables?

No. Like all randomness, random table take away player agency.

Take the example:

A player scouts the big bridge and the DM rolls for a random bridge encounter and gets 'none'. So the PC finds nothing on the bridge.

The player happily has their character go back to town, load up their wagon, and in a couple of game hours goes back to the bridge. The DM rolls another random bridge encounter and gets 'hill giant robber'. So the player looses their player agency by the random roll.

It's no different then a DM 'just saying' a troll is 'suddenly' on the bridge.