Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[hawkeyefan]

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.

In the example given, 1-3 GM narrates and 4-6 player narrates, the dice may grant the player the ability to decide what happens as a result of the action. If they roll high enough, the player has the agency to narrate what happens. They most likely would narrate some form of success for the action in question.

If the GM decides, he's likely going to narrate some form of failure or perhaps success with setback or similar. Whatever he decides, the GM is narrating the outcome, not the player, so on a 1-3, the player has no agency.

Now imagine on a 1-6 the GM decides. If that's the case, where does the player agency come into it?

If things are always up to the GM, then the players cannot know the chances of success for any action they take, not unless the GM decides to share his reasoning or his judgment with them in some manner (perhaps he says "this will be a DC 25 persuasion check" or even just "this is going to be very difficult to pull off" or something similar). And it's also possible to get very used to a specific GM and how they tend to handle such things to the point where players start to become comfortable about gauging their odds for in game actions.

None of this changes the fundamental fact that if the GM can always trump the rules, then player agency can effectively become zero under this system.

There may be times where it is perfectly reasonable to restrict agency....several examples have been given, whether based on genre or the established fiction, and there are probably others we could come up with, as well. I don't think that anyone here would say that such GM judgment is always bad or anything like that.

I think it's just more that rules that so heavily rely on GM judgment in this manner typically will either not offer as much player agency, or can be more susceptible to an arbitrary reduction in such agency. They also tend to lend themselves to potentially unclear situations such as may have existed in the OP.

 

[chaochou]

I'm asking how "The DM Decides" removes player agency but "The DIce Decide" doesn't

Explain how you think a dice generate propositions.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

I think it's more about being able to achieve success at the stated actions rather than just declaring them. If the GM can simply decide "no, that's impossible" whenever he wants, then declaring actions is meaningless.

Now, I don't think anyone would GM that way and expect to keep their players. But perhaps this helps to illustrate some of the concern about this system? Or why some might have some dissatisfaction with it?

Looking at it solely in the context of D&D.....can a DM simply narrate that an attack is a miss, no matter what? I mean, if I roll a 26 on my attack, I should be able to hit the orc. If the DM says "oh, no, actually your sword is deflected by an arrow in flight, and your attack misses" then I'm likely gonna be a bit annoyed by that. This is far less likely to happen though, because D&D has a plethora of combat rules that make it pretty clear what types of actions can be taken (use a Standard Action to take the Attack Action), how their success is determined (roll d20 and add your total attack bonus and score equal to or higher than the target's AC), and their outcome (roll 1d10 and add your damage bonus, and reduce target HP by that amount).

Combat is all very clear and understood. But the social aspect of the game is far less so......what am rolling, what's the target number, what happens on a success, do I need only one or will I need to roll again, and so on......these are all questions that rest entirely on the judgment of the GM.

And that may not be bad. I run and play 5E all the time.....it can work great and be loads of fun. But these soft spots in the rules absolutely can result in poor play experiences from time to time, especially with a DM who isn't principled, or who is still learning.

 

[prabe]

In the example given, 1-3 GM narrates and 4-6 player narrates, the dice may grant the player the ability to decide what If the GM decides, he's likely going to narrate some form of failure or perhaps success with setback or similar. Whatever he decides, the GM is narrating the outcome, not the player, so on a 1-3, the player has no agency.

So apparently "agency" and "narrative authority" are synonyms, and they only apply if the character succeeds at a thing. Wouldn't have been my guess. Does explain why there was so much pushback against the idea that characters could make mistakes, though.

If things are always up to the GM, then the players cannot know the chances of success for any action they take, not unless the GM decides to share his reasoning or his judgment with them in some manner (perhaps he says "this will be a DC 25 persuasion check" or even just "this is going to be very difficult to pull off" or something similar). And it's also possible to get very used to a specific GM and how they tend to handle such things to the point where players start to become comfortable about gauging their odds for in game actions.

None of this changes the fundamental fact that if the GM can always trump the rules, then player agency can effectively become zero under this system.

It sounds as though you're saying that any game rule that requires GM judgment reduces player agency. That would explain why games that purport to be so fully about player agency seem to place such tight restrictions on the GM. Obviously, I'm not sure I agree with the premise, but the logic seems to follow.

There may be times where it is perfectly reasonable to restrict agency....several examples have been given, whether based on genre or the established fiction, and there are probably others we could come up with, as well. I don't think that anyone here would say that such GM judgment is always bad or anything like that.

I think it's just more that rules that so heavily rely on GM judgment in this manner typically will either not offer as much player agency, or can be more susceptible to an arbitrary reduction in such agency. They also tend to lend themselves to potentially unclear situations such as may have existed in the OP.

I don't disagree that it's reasonable to disallow actions that don't fit the fiction--whether it's a matter of established facts in the fiction, or genre-fidelity, or whatever--but I'm not sure I agree that those are diminishing player agency. Of course, we may be looking at this from different angles and/or using words differently.

 

[prabe]

Explain how you think a dice generate propositions.

Where, when I was speaking literally, did I say a die could generate a proposition?

 

[hawkeyefan]

So apparently "agency" and "narrative authority" are synonyms, and they only apply if the character succeeds at a thing. Wouldn't have been my guess. Does explain why there was so much pushback against the idea that characters could make mistakes, though.

I don't think they are synonyms. But I think on is an example of the other.

Characters making mistakes would likely be when they rolled a 1-3 in the example.

It sounds as though you're saying that any game rule that requires GM judgment reduces player agency. That would explain why games that purport to be so fully about player agency seem to place such tight restrictions on the GM. Obviously, I'm not sure I agree with the premise, but the logic seems to follow.

No, that's not what I'm saying. Every game requires GM judgment in some way. There's a reason the role exists in most games.....it's kind of required. But how they exercise their judgment, and what limits are placed on them, and what the players can or can't do about it......those are all important to the big picture.

I don't disagree that it's reasonable to disallow actions that don't fit the fiction--whether it's a matter of established facts in the fiction, or genre-fidelity, or whatever--but I'm not sure I agree that those are diminishing player agency. Of course, we may be looking at this from different angles and/or using words differently.

Sure they are.....they're just reasonable ways of limiting the player agency. Saying "I pull out my ray gun" in a game of D&D is usually gonna get shot down, and rightfully so (except if you're playing some kind of Barrier Peaks flavored game). It is a limit on player agency to not allow that....but it's a limit that everyone is okay with.

I think the issue is the rather large gray area when it comes to many other elements of D&D play that are left up to the DM. For example, taking one insult cast by one PC toward an NPC and deciding that the NPC must not only react negatively, but that any and all progress or good will established by other PCs prior to this point is null and void.

 

[iserith]

So apparently "agency" and "narrative authority" are synonyms, and they only apply if the character succeeds at a thing. Wouldn't have been my guess. Does explain why there was so much pushback against the idea that characters could make mistakes, though.

Pretty sure "agency" is just another buzz word like "metagaming" or "railroading" that doesn't actually have a definition anymore and is used solely by internet posters to criticize other people and their games.

 

[prabe]

Pretty sure "agency" is just another buzz word like "metagaming" or "railroading" that doesn't actually have a definition anymore and is used solely by internet posters to criticize other people and their games.

The meaning of "agency" in a TRPG context, as I've come to understand it, is the ability to act, to make a choice, to have a choice matter. It's at the heart of arguments over quantum ogres and "railroads." I don't see any resolution system I've experienced as inherently removing that (though some games have other elements that do).

It seems consistent with dictionary definitions I've found. We could get into whether lexicographers are (or should be) descriptive or prescriptive, but that's entirely another topic.

 

[Lanefan]

I should add my standard caveat: I'm not talking about OSR-ish/"skilled play" here, where secret information in the GM's notes is de rigeur, and players are expected to discover that through various processes including the trial-and-error of action declaration. The flip side is that in that sort of play the GM has a very onerous responsibility to be exceedingly fair in not changing or departing from the notes, because that risks making the game competely arbitrary and subject to the GM's whims. But no one in this thread seems to be playing that sort of game.

Sez who?

I am, and I suspect a few others are also but I'll leave it to them to speak up if they like.

 

[Lanefan]

In the example given, 1-3 GM narrates and 4-6 player narrates, the dice may grant the player the ability to decide what happens as a result of the action. If they roll high enough, the player has the agency to narrate what happens. They most likely would narrate some form of success for the action in question.

If the GM decides, he's likely going to narrate some form of failure or perhaps success with setback or similar. Whatever he decides, the GM is narrating the outcome, not the player, so on a 1-3, the player has no agency.

Now imagine on a 1-6 the GM decides. If that's the case, where does the player agency come into it?

A previous question from another poster remains unanswered as yet, and I too am curious, so I'll rephrase it here:

Is there a game or system out there where, in effect, on 1-6 the player decides?

And if yes, given that it's simple human nature to not willingly disadvantage oneself when other options exist, how on earth would it function?