Players choose what their PCs do . . .

The function of players in RPGing is often described as deciding what their PCs do. But this can be quite ambiguous.

A classic article on the analysis of actions (Donald Davidson, "Actions, Reasons, and Causes" (1963)) gives the following example:


In RPGing, I think it's a big deal who gets to decide what descriptions of the PCs' actions are true, and how.

For instance, suppose that my ability to decide what descriptions are true of my PC's actions is confined to very "thin" descriptions focused on the character's bodily movements, like I attack the orc with my sword or I wink at the maiden. Playing that game will produce a very different experience from one in which I can decide that the following description is true of my PC's actions: I kill the orc with my sword or I soften the heart of the maiden with a wink.

The same point can be made in relation to success on checks: if succeeding at a check makes a description such as I find what I was looking for in the safe true, that game will produce a different experience from one in which it makes true only a description such as I open the safe, with the description of my action in terms of I find X in the safe remaining something for someone else - eg the GM - to decide.

This example shows how it is possible (i) for it to be true that the players choose what their PCs do - under a certain, fairly thin or confined sort of description - and (ii) for there to be fudge-free checks and yet (iii) for it also to be the case that the GM decides everything significant that happens - ie it is the GM who gets to establish the richer, wider, consequence-laden descriptions of what the PCs do.

I think that a failure to recognise this point makes a lot of discussions of railroading, "player agency" less productive or insightful than they might be.

What do others think about who does, or should, get to establish the truth of descriptions of PC actions, and how?

That it's a according to preference.

Firstly, I agree with the way you've presented this -- so no issues at all with how you've explained the difference in approach. That said, the choice is really a matter of preference. There's two different kinds of games going on here, with different play goals, and that means that it's the play goals that are making the choice, not the actual mechanic. So, in that sense, I think your question is a bit misformed -- it's aimed at the wrong thing. It should be aimed at what are you accomplishing with your choice -- what play does it enable -- rather than asking about the mechanic used. Mechanics are just tools, after all.

I stand a foot in both. I enjoy the play of 5e, which is very GM determines heavy, but moderate a good bit towards letting players have more control over outcomes, especially in cases where build choices have been made to enable such. Very lenient on 'saying yes', and very attentive to the goal of an action, not just the approach (thin declaration, if you will). I dislike gotchas. However, in 5e, it's the job of the GM to narrate outcomes, so I do, even if I keep a weather eye out on making sure I don't invalidate player intentions (too often). On the other hand, I also like Blades in the Dark, which is very much player narrated outcomes on success of the mechanics. As a GM, I prefer the low-prep, heavy in-session work of the latter a bit more. My players prefer the former more. We compromise by playing mostly 5e with the larger group and Blades with a subset. I get my itches scratched, and so do my players.

As for why my players seem to prefer a thinner declaration? A few reasons. One, they trust me to not be unnecessarily mean (but definitely necessarily mean) and like the scramble to react to situations. They like the tactical game a good bit (most also have or still do wargame), and that's full of thin declarations (the mechanics provide outcomes, not players or GMs). I think they also like the discovery of a story rather than the creation of one? That's not very clear, so let me try to clarify. They seem to like the idea that they're affecting a larger plot they didn't have input into prior to play. This is very much a feel thing, but they seem to like foiling whatever thing the GM (often me) came up with. That there was a story without them that they then changed. And part of getting this feeling, I suppose, is to make the right thin declarations to get the GM to narrate that success. There's an element of puzzle solving there. This sounds bad, so remember this isn't a hard, "this is the reason" thing, but rather a tendency in a group that also, largely, enjoys playing the other way. But, I think it's the tendency that keeps 5e at the top spot of the play roster.

Hmm. I think I have rambled enough, for now.

pemerton said:

For instance, suppose that my ability to decide what descriptions are true of my PC's actions is confined to very "thin" descriptions focused on the character's bodily movements, like I attack the orc with my sword or I wink at the maiden. Playing that game will produce a very different experience from one in which I can decide that the following description is true of my PC's actions: I kill the orc with my sword or I soften the heart of the maiden with a wink.

The same point can be made in relation to success on checks: if succeeding at a check makes a description such as I find what I was looking for in the safe true, that game will produce a different experience from one in which it makes true only a description such as I open the safe, with the description of my action in terms of I find X in the safe remaining something for someone else - eg the GM - to decide.

Click to expand...

Maybe try viewing this through a different lens or two?

1) Player control is based on difficulty. Clutching a sword is easy. Swinging a sword (at least the first few times) is easy. Attacking an orc is more difficult. Killing said orc is (probably) far more difficult. Player agency ends where difficulty begins.

2) Does the game require the players to act -through- their characters? As in, you can do whatever you want, as long as it's something you could do as your character. The GM doesn't often have this limitation. Does the GM want to place a volcano in the middle of town? Done. No character needed.

Food for thought.

DMMike said:

Player control is based on difficulty. Clutching a sword is easy. Swinging a sword (at least the first few times) is easy. Attacking an orc is more difficult. Killing said orc is (probably) far more difficult. Player agency ends where difficulty begins.

Click to expand...

I don't quite get this.

The player decides I wink at the maiden. Who gets to decide whether it's also true that I soften the heart of the maiden with a wink? They're too different descriptions of the one action, so framing things in terms of difficulty doesn't seem to help.

For the example of the safe, what if you’re not already looking for something specific in it? What if it’s more a case of “ooo a safe! Let’s see what’s inside.”

pemerton said:

The player decides I wink at the maiden. Who gets to decide whether it's also true that I soften the heart of the maiden with a wink? They're too different descriptions of the one action, so framing things in terms of difficulty doesn't seem to help.

Click to expand...

It might not. It's just one way to look at things. But for the exercise, it's pretty easy to wink. Softening hearts sounds a bit more difficult. Especially when your name is, say, Quasimodo.

Also, some analysis of the problem might be in order, because I don't see Soften Heart and Wink as the same action. If a player told me "I wink," I'd say "great." If a player said "I soften the maiden's heart," I'd say "so how do you do that?"

DMMike said:

It might not. It's just one way to look at things. But for the exercise, it's pretty easy to wink. Softening hearts sounds a bit more difficult. Especially when your name is, say, Quasimodo.

Also, some analysis of the problem might be in order, because I don't see Soften Heart and Wink as the same action. If a player told me "I wink," I'd say "great." If a player said "I soften the maiden's heart," I'd say "so how do you do that?"

Click to expand...

Sounds like you have half of it down pat. Now, you need to work on grasping how the player determines the outcome of the wink rather than the GM.

pemerton said:

The function of players in RPGing is often described as deciding what their PCs do. But this can be quite ambiguous.

A classic article on the analysis of actions (Donald Davidson, "Actions, Reasons, and Causes" (1963)) gives the following example:

I flip the switch, turn on the light, and illuminate the room. Unbeknownst to me I also alert a prowler to the fact that I am home. Here I need not have done four things, but only one, of which four descriptions have been given.​

In RPGing, I think it's a big deal who gets to decide what descriptions of the PCs' actions are true, and how.

For instance, suppose that my ability to decide what descriptions are true of my PC's actions is confined to very "thin" descriptions focused on the character's bodily movements, like I attack the orc with my sword or I wink at the maiden. Playing that game will produce a very different experience from one in which I can decide that the following description is true of my PC's actions: I kill the orc with my sword or I soften the heart of the maiden with a wink.

The same point can be made in relation to success on checks: if succeeding at a check makes a description such as I find what I was looking for in the safe true, that game will produce a different experience from one in which it makes true only a description such as I open the safe, with the description of my action in terms of I find X in the safe remaining something for someone else - eg the GM - to decide.

This example shows how it is possible (i) for it to be true that the players choose what their PCs do - under a certain, fairly thin or confined sort of description - and (ii) for there to be fudge-free checks and yet (iii) for it also to be the case that the GM decides everything significant that happens - ie it is the GM who gets to establish the richer, wider, consequence-laden descriptions of what the PCs do.

I think that a failure to recognise this point makes a lot of discussions of railroading, "player agency" less productive or insightful than they might be.

What do others think about who does, or should, get to establish the truth of descriptions of PC actions, and how?

Click to expand...

You know, thinking on this a bit more, I'm not sure where the resolution mechanic comes in. Are you talking about the outcome on a successful resolution? I'd guess you are, but it's best to be clear. Note that I'd lump, "saying yes" under successful resolution.

pemerton said:

What do others think about who does, or should, get to establish the truth of descriptions of PC actions, and how?

Click to expand...

Who does, or should, get to establish the truth of descriptions of PC actions... depends on what game you are playing.

It isn't as if we all like the same foods, music, or books. So, we should not expect everyone to like the same games. We should instead, expect a varied collection of games, with different ways of doing things.

pemerton said:

I don't quite get this.

The player decides I wink at the maiden. Who gets to decide whether it's also true that I soften the heart of the maiden with a wink? They're too different descriptions of the one action, so framing things in terms of difficulty doesn't seem to help.

Click to expand...

Only one of those is a description of an action. The second is a description of both an action and the result of that action. The action is a wink, the result is the softening of the heart.