ClaytonCross
Kinder reader Inflection wanted
As I said on the previous page, in that first case (negating the power of the player's choices when making his character) it's kind of mean, but it's not actually affecting player agency. Player agency is a matter of controlling what your character thinks and what actions he takes, not how successful he is at those actions.
I disagree. It is a players choice to be proficient in skills, to be stronger in aspects of their character's design. If you eliminate the effect of those choices you are in fact infringing on the players agency of their character by removing changing character personality at your whim.
Player: I want to be a master thief, so I am going to play rogue with a expertise in stealth and thieves tools.
GM: Sure, you auto-fail all your checks or have an abnormally high DC because I have decided your a horrible thief or I feel your being good at being stealthy separates you from the group and picking lock is too easy for you so I am going to disrespect and counter your choices and force your character to act and succeed as I deem not as you as a player choose, but I am not going to explain this to you with respect because its in the rules and part of your fun. I am just going to do it in secret and your party can laugh about how horrible a thief you are with out know its actually me being a GM controlling your player character but having you roll pointless roles to avoid conflict until you roll a natural 20 with a +9 and fail to open a basic lock.
I don't care what skill it is. This is GM meta-gaming control of Player characters and steeling players agency. I get your saying this is not "thought" but it is identity of the character which is just as much a player agency concern.
--
For part two with the Barbarian. I would have both players roll, but I would let the Barbarian player determine how a win or lose effects them. The skill still matters, the player can still lose the contest, but that doesn't mean the barbarian gives over his gold. The dice become a reference and the Barbarian player should attempt to role play that with how he feels his character should react, but that doesn't mean the Face can control the Barbarian or that the barbarian's player should completely ignore the strength of the Faces character's agreement. Perhaps, it spurs a desire to help in another way or perhaps a failure would have meant the barbarian punched in the face, but a success means the barbarian just laughs... so I half agree with you here in that Barbarian controls his character, I do think the dice should be rolled as a reference of skill / ability interactions.
For part two with the Barbarian. I would have both players roll, but I would let the Barbarian player determine how a win or lose effects them. The skill still matters, the player can still lose the contest, but that doesn't mean the barbarian gives over his gold. The dice become a reference and the Barbarian player should attempt to role play that with how he feels his character should react, but that doesn't mean the Face can control the Barbarian or that the barbarian's player should completely ignore the strength of the Faces character's agreement. Perhaps, it spurs a desire to help in another way or perhaps a failure would have meant the barbarian punched in the face, but a success means the barbarian just laughs... so I half agree with you here in that Barbarian controls his character, I do think the dice should be rolled as a reference of skill / ability interactions.
Last edited: