Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[Lanefan]

Explain how you think a dice generate propositions.

It doesn't. It generates outcomes.

After an action is declared (or equivalent), a die roll generates outcomes in a manner largely out of the player's control (assuming honest die-rolling). A GM using full-on GM fiat also generates outcomes in a manner largely out of the player's control.

The question being asked is what's the root difference between these two methods of generating outcomes, other than semantics?

(I have my own ideas as to an answer to this question but I'll wait a bit so as to leave it open-ended for now)

 

[pemerton]

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.

Some of the systems I play work as you describe: Burning Wheel and Prince Valliant are both like this, though with more complicated ways of building the dice pools and more judgement involved in determining how many successes are needed.

Other systems I play use different approaches: eg in 4e D&D or Classic Traveller the action thta is declared affects the choice or resolution mechanic and the way it works ("subsystems"). But they still have the basic idea that if the player wins the roll then what s/he wanted to have happen, occurs.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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?

Well, “oneself” and “one’s character” are often blurred, but for many they are not, and some games thrive on complication.

That being said, the only games I can think of that may fit this description would be something like Microscope or Kingdom. Those are more storytelling games, though. But players absolutely can narrate awful things happening to their characters much as in the same way an author may have awful things happen to a character he loves.

I mean, drama in any medium means some bad things will happen to characters.

 

[prabe]

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.

I am simultaneously DMing two campaigns almost entirely unlike what @Lanefan runs (and I gather plays in), and deeply sympathetic to much of what he says about how he tries to run. I try to manage it so the setting has an objective existence outside the PCs; I let the PCs decide what goals they're going to pursue and in which order; I'm maybe more willing than many other GMs to let the PCs flail a little. (Whether it's the characters or the players in any part of that doesn't matter to me--how much the players are seeing things from the characters' POV is on them.) I don't do "gotcha" things, but I'm also willing to let the players (and/or the characters) make mistakes--sometimes the story goes interesting places, then.

 

[Campbell]

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.

Moldvay for one. Kevin Crawford and many of his OSR contemporaries for another.

There is a pretty fundamental split in the OSR community based on if you prefer the Moldvay B/X approach to module design and running a game or are more Gygaxian in your leanings. I mean at least we all agree that Dragonlance ruined everything!

More seriously when running old school games and newer offshoots (Mothership, Nightmares Underneath, Stars Without Number) I view myself as a war gaming referee. I build these challenges because I want to see how players handle them. The fun for me is enabling their play. Disciplined GMing a big part of that.

 

[Fenris-77]

One of the ways to parse RPGs is to examine the way a given game apportions authority over the diegetic frame. This usually means unpacking how that authority is split between players, more specifically the GM role and the player role. The diegetic frame is the frame within which narrated events occur, so for ease, the narrative frame, although thats a less precise term. Player agency refers to the portion of authority given to the player role to establish fact or exert change on the frame state. This includes both declaring actions that will change the frame and narrative control over the outcome of those actions, among other things. Those aren't mutually exclusive or even particularly separate. A given game will use various rules and mechanics to describe and delineate this authority for all players. The phrase player agency covers a lot of ground, and looks different depending on the game in question, but always comes back to authority over the diegetic frame.

 

[pemerton]

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.

<snipP

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.

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.

These posts seeem confused about @chaochou's point. He is not making an assertion about what the rules of 5e D&D permit or require. He is making an assertion about whether a particular decision-making procedure permits players to exercise agency.

It does not rebut his claim to show that one popular RPG endorses or promotes that decision-making procedure.

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.

In the post of mine that you quotd, I distinguished two things:

(i) Establishing the costraints of genre and fictional positioning;

(ii) Applying the action resolution mechanics to find out what happens when an action is declared.

The first - which seems to be what you are referring to when you talk about "changing everything" and "established things" - does engage player agency. Because it is (or certainly can be) a matter of negotiation and table consensus.

The second does (or certainly can) engage player agency because the action resolution mechanics tell us whether the player's vision or the GM's vision of what comes next prevails.

Agency is limited in pretty much all RPGs.

Which RPGs do you have in mind?

In a social activity - include collective generation of a fiction as takes place in RPGing - it will be rare for any one person to have everything play out as they envisage it. But that isn't what @chaochou is talking about. He referred to GM decides - that is, to a situation in which one person routinely gets to have things play out as they envisage it. That clearly involves a burden on the agency of other participants.

 

[pemerton]

Moldvay for one. Kevin Crawford and many of his OSR contemporaries for another.

But I don't think those people are participating in this thread. Which is what I had referred to.

when running old school games and newer offshoots (Mothership, Nightmares Underneath, Stars Without Number) I view myself as a war gaming referee. I build these challenges because I want to see how players handle them. The fun for me is enabling their play. Disciplined GMing a big part of that.

This I agree with 100% and have aready posted multiple time upthread. I can't actually do it, but I've got a fairly good grasp of what it is that has to be done.

But the OP does not read to me like a report from the play of a "skilled play"/OSR game. That's why I thik that discussions of how to GM such games - while interesting and important in themselves - don't shed much light on the OP's situation.

 

[Campbell]

Broadly there is no such thing as general agency. You have agency over something - the ability to exert control over something. To have agency over content of the fiction means that I meaningfully have the ability to gain a measure of control. It does not mean I presently have control, only that through play I have the ability to exert control. Agency is almost never complete, almost always shared and often has limitations. In roleplaying games fictional positioning, assumed play expectations, assumed GMing principles, the individual boundaries of group members, and the rules of the game are all common limiters.

One mistake we often make in discussions of all sorts is assuming that because something is good in small or moderate proportions that it is good in large or total proportions. There are very good reasons to place limits on the agency of all participants (including the GM). Those reasons and those limitations are going to be different from game to game. Some will come from the text and some will come from the social environment.

This is why I find some modern mainstream texts irksome. They focus only on rights and authority, but never on limitations and responsibilities. If you take a look at Moldvay or even the First Edition DMG the game will instruct the GM. With authority it imparts responsibility. It even has back end rules you are expected to follow. It places limits on your agency so that players may also have some agency over the fiction. These things do not necessarily have to come from action resolution rules that impart agency directly. It come from expectations placed on the participants.

In a situation where there is a lack of enumerated principles and the GM has extraordinary latitude player agency is limited to what that GM allows. That might be a great deal. It might be barely at all. A player has no meaningful way to expect their actions are making a meaningful impact.

 

[prabe]

These posts seeem confused about @chaochou's point. He is not making an assertion about what the rules of 5e D&D permit or require. He is making an assertion about whether a particular decision-making procedure permits players to exercise agency.

It does not rebut his claim to show that one popular RPG endorses or promotes that decision-making procedure.

My point is that "DM Decides" allows for as much player agency as "The Dice Decide." I was using 5E as an example:

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.

Wherein I think it's clear that I'm using 5E because it's the system I'm most conversant in at the moment, not because I think 5E's existence negates his point. I feel that the mechanics in question are player-facing, which @chaochou seemed to feel important for player agency, and I said so; I was asking for clarification as to whether I understood what was meant.