Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[Maxperson]

Proponents of ’GM decides’ as a method of policing bad faith play by negating player agency, can’t simultaneously claim that GM decides doesn’t negate player agency.

Cool story. Player agency isn't being negated, though. I haven't seen anyone here suggest stopping the PCs from trying impossible things. Impossible things are just failing due to the impossibility of the attempted action.

 

[pemerton]

Cool story. Player agency isn't being negated, though. I haven't seen anyone here suggest stopping the PCs from trying impossible things. Impossible things are just failing due to the impossibility of the attempted action.

I don't think this addresses @chaochou's point.

(1) He is not talking about what happens to the PCs in the fiction. He is talking about what happens at the table.

(2) At the table, he is not talking about the agency of the players to speak words like I try such-and-such. He is talking about the agency of the players to actually change the shared fiction by having their PCs do things. If the GM decrees that a change can't take place because such-and-such is impossible, the player has not exercised any agency. Their attempt at the exercise of agency has been blocked/negated by the GM.

That may be a good thing or a bad thing, but it's a thing.

My own preference is not to block/negate players' agency in this way, which is why not far upthread I said that the issue of genre fidelity and consistency with ficitonal positioning is something that can be established by negotiation and consensus (ie players get to exercise agency here) and that action declarations that fit within genre and the established fiction are to be adjudicated via the appropriate procedures (which in the games I play allows plenty of room for player agency to change the fiction).

It's for the same reason that I have been critical of the use of secret/unilateral GM information to declare actions automatically unsuccessful: this does not allow the players the agency of negotiation/consensus nor the agency of action resolution mechanics.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't think this addresses @chaochou's point.

(1) He is not talking about what happens to the PCs in the fiction. He is talking about what happens at the table.

(2) At the table, he is not talking about the agency of the players to speak words like I try such-and-such. He is talking about the agency of the players to actually change the shared fiction by having their PCs do things. If the GM decrees that a change can't take place because such-and-such is impossible, the player has not exercised any agency. Their attempt at the exercise of agency has been blocked/negated by the GM.

Is there a game where the players have the ability to change everything and anything that they like, or are there rules and limitations on what and how they can change them? Because I haven't seen a game you've mentioned where the players can do anything they like. At the very least they aren't allowed to undo established things.

Agency is limited in pretty much all RPGs. The DM saying causing an attempt at an impossible task to fail isn't removing agency. The players still have the same agency that they had prior to saying not. It was just appropriately limited by game rules, just like in any RPG. The amount of leeway a particular game grants may vary, but the DM using the rules and limitations of the game being played to say yes, no or roll does not remove any agency since it was already absent due to the rules.

My own preference is not to block/negate players' agency in this way, which is why not far upthread I said that the issue of genre fidelity and consistency with ficitonal positioning is something that can be established by negotiation and consensus (ie players get to exercise agency here) and that action declarations that fit within genre and the established fiction are to be adjudicated via the appropriate procedures (which in the games I play allows plenty of room for player agency to change the fiction).

Sure. You prefer games that set the player agency at a higher amount than D&D does. You can also House Rule/Home Brew D&D and grant more or less agency. Going by the D&D rules, though, saying no to an impossible action doesn't remove/negate any player agency. That agency was taken by RAW, not the DM.

 

[chaochou]

Player agency is always zero when GM decides.

Anyone bringing up ‘other rpgs’ should name them explicitly, so we can refer to the game texts.

Agency is the ability to change the fiction, usually through player-facing mechanics combined with established fiction which act as constraints.

Announcing an action isn’t agency - such a definition would be a nonsense. Of course, nonsense definitions suit the purposes of GMs wishing to conceal the lack of player agency in their games.

 

[prabe]

Player agency is always zero when GM decides.

Anyone bringing up ‘other rpgs’ should name them explicitly, so we can refer to the game texts.

Agency is the ability to change the fiction, usually through player-facing mechanics combined with established fiction which act as constraints.

Announcing an action isn’t agency - such a definition would be a nonsense. Of course, nonsense definitions suit the purposes of GMs wishing to conceal the lack of player agency in their games.

If players have zero agency when the GM decides, it seems to me as though they have no agency when the dice decide. In D&D 5E (which is the game currently at the top of my brain, so it's easiest for me to reference) the fact the DM decides if something is certain or in doubt, and the difficulty if it's in doubt, is called out in the Player's Handbook, so it seems to me like a player-facing thing. It is of course, possible that I'm misunderstanding you--or that I'm one of those GMs who doesn't allow player agency at all.

 

[chaochou]

If players have zero agency when the GM decides, it seems to me as though they have no agency when the dice decide.

That would depend on the specific wording of the mechanic in question.

Here’s a simple mechanic:

Whenever a player proposes an action, roll 1d6. On a 1-3 the GM narrates the outcome. On a 4-6 the player narrates the outcome.

Such a mechanic offers clear and transparent player agency. The aesthetics may not be to everyones taste, but it proves that mechanical resolution can provide player agency.

PbtA games work on a much more sophisticated variation of this basic premise. Dust Devils works exactly like this, except the dice are replaced with a hand of poker. I could name others, but it doesn’t add anything.

-or that I'm one of those GMs who doesn't allow player agency at all.

And if your game is fun and and everyone is having a good time, so what? It doesn’t matter to me, nor you if everything is working.

But such self-reflection will be valuable if you find yourself in the position of the OP.

 

[prabe]

That would depend on the specific wording of the mechanic in question.

Here’s a simple mechanic:

Whenever a player proposes an action, roll 1d6. On a 1-3 the GM narrates the outcome. On a 4-6 the player narrates the outcome.

Such a mechanic offers clear and transparent player agency. The aesthetics may not be to everyones taste, but it proves that mechanical resolution can provide player agency.

But in that instance, the dice aren't deciding success/failure, just narrative authority. My point is that if "The GM Decides" removes player agency--because player can't really control what the GM will decide--then "The Dice Decide" seems to also remove player agency, because the player can't control the dice, either. The player can (probably) manipulate the odds somewhat, but random is what random does.

And if your game is fun and and everyone is having a good time, so what? It doesn’t matter to me, nor you if everything is working.

But such self-reflection will be valuable if you find yourself in the position of the OP.

Agreed that understanding why one GMs the way one does is a good thing, and agreed that "people having a good time" is the most important metric for "a good game." I've enjoyed games with a variety of amounts of player narrative authority, and I find that what matter most to my enjoyment of the game is the group I'm playing with.

 

[chaochou]

But in that instance, the dice aren't deciding success/failure, just narrative authority. My point is that if "The GM Decides" removes player agency--because player can't really control what the GM will decide--then "The Dice Decide" seems to also remove player agency, because the player can't control the dice, either. The player can (probably) manipulate the odds somewhat, but random is what random does.

Thats simply playing the same semantic game as the last poster who claimed dice have whims. Tedious.

 

[prabe]

Thats simply playing the same semantic game as the last poster who claimed dice have whims. Tedious.

No, it's not. The poster who described dice as having whims wasn't pretending to be describing a literal truth, but was using "whims of the dice" as a metaphor for "random chance"; that's not playing a semantics game at all. I'm asking how "The DM Decides" removes player agency but "The DIce Decide" doesn't; your example didn't touch on player agency, by my lights, and I'm trying to determine if you're maybe using it to mean something radically different from what I do.

 

[FrogReaver]

No, it's not. The poster who described dice as having whims wasn't pretending to be describing a literal truth, but was using "whims of the dice" as a metaphor for "random chance"; that's not playing a semantics game at all. I'm asking how "The DM Decides" removes player agency but "The DIce Decide" doesn't; your example didn't touch on player agency, by my lights, and I'm trying to determine if you're maybe using it to mean something radically different from what I do.

I think the simple answer is that player agency to them means something different than it does to you and me.

For me and I presume you as well, player agency is about what actions the players can declare (and more but typing out the nuance on the phone is difficult). What they mean by player agency I would call total fictional control which isn’t really the same thing IMO.

In the real world I have agency (philosophical objections aside) and yet I’m there are few outcomes within my power to control.