Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[FrogReaver]

I wasn't, as I flatly rejected that "agency over a character" is separable from agency in general. Did you miss the post where I said that? It's 1207, and it's a reply to you. You should have a notification.

You wasn't what?

 

[Ovinomancer]

I will explain why this doesn't compute for me. The dice are inscrutable; I have no way of knowing before I know the roll what the outcome will be. I might know the odds, and I might be able to alter them, but on a fundamental level I have no control over the outcome. The GM may or may not be as inscrutable as the dice; I might know the GM's tendencies, or I might not. I might be able to frame the attempted action in such a way that the GM will allow an auto-success, I might not be. I might have more control over the outcome if the GM is deciding than if I'm rolling a die.

I don't see any difference in agency, there.

Another thought: If a failure on a die roll doesn't remove/negate/falsify agency, neither does a failure because the attempted action is impossible. The method by which failure is derived doesn't change the fact that it's a failure, and failure doesn't seem to me to on its own remove/negate/falsify agency.

The example was the GM ruling no by fiat versus getting a failure on the dice. I had a chance with the dice, but it didn't pan out. I never had a chance with the GM. It wasn't about being able to figure the odds in a case where I know and can anticipate the GM. I'm not in the camp that thinks that the GM deciding automatically removes any possibility of agency. Otherwise I'd have to accept that my players in my 5e game do not have agency, because 5e's core mechanic is GM decides. But, I look at what happens in my game, and lo, I behold agency! So, yeah, you totes can have agency with the GM deciding, but it really rests on the GM following clear principles of play, choosing to use the game mechanics well, and limiting saying no to clear situations where it's obvious why.

 

[Ovinomancer]

If the DM hasn't ruled on the action then it hasn't failed yet.

You seem to have forgotten that your example was the GM deciding the action failed. It's a little late to change it to something else. If you'd like to, we could discuss a new example.

 

[Campbell]

Here's why I find agency over character behavior in isolation not a very interesting subject when discussing roleplaying games. Playing an RPG is a social act. Being able to declare stuff about your character that has no impact on what anyone else at the table does is playing solitaire in the middle of a poker game. There is a very real place for talking about it in the greater context where our play affects one another. I want to talk about poker - not solitaire.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You wasn't what?

This thread is moving pretty fast, so maybe you forgot you asked a question? I was responding to your question. It's post 1216.

 

[FrogReaver]

I will explain why this doesn't compute for me. The dice are inscrutable; I have no way of knowing before I know the roll what the outcome will be. I might know the odds, and I might be able to alter them, but on a fundamental level I have no control over the outcome. The GM may or may not be as inscrutable as the dice; I might know the GM's tendencies, or I might not. I might be able to frame the attempted action in such a way that the GM will allow an auto-success, I might not be. I might have more control over the outcome if the GM is deciding than if I'm rolling a die.

I don't see any difference in agency, there.

Another thought: If a failure on a die roll doesn't remove/negate/falsify agency, neither does a failure because the attempted action is impossible. The method by which failure is derived doesn't change the fact that it's a failure, and failure doesn't seem to me to on its own remove/negate/falsify agency.

I would summarize that this way:

The moment the DM determines failure corresponds to the moment the dice determines failure. Looking from the moment failure was determined in either case and stating there is now no possibility of success is 100% true but not useful. To determine agency you must look before failure is determined and whether the capability for success exists. In a DM Decides game all actions have the possibility for success as the DM can decide success for any of them.

 

[prabe]

The example was the GM ruling no by fiat versus getting a failure on the dice. I had a chance with the dice, but it didn't pan out. I never had a chance with the GM. It wasn't about being able to figure the odds in a case where I know and can anticipate the GM. I'm not in the camp that thinks that the GM deciding automatically removes any possibility of agency. Otherwise I'd have to accept that my players in my 5e game do not have agency, because 5e's core mechanic is GM decides. But, I look at what happens in my game, and lo, I behold agency! So, yeah, you totes can have agency with the GM deciding, but it really rests on the GM following clear principles of play, choosing to use the game mechanics well, and limiting saying no to clear situations where it's obvious why.

Obviously a bad GM can eliminate agency in a large number of ways. My point is (and I think has been, pretty consistently) that "The GM Decides" does not inherently remove agency--especially not if, as you say, the GM limits fiat decisions to cases where it's obvious--I'm kinda willing to allow obvious in retrospect, here, because it might not be obvious at the time but it might be obvious later; I'm willing to acknowledge different opinions on that are possible.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Stating it doesn't need to be your character isn't really much of a counterpoint is it?

It was not a counterpoint, it was a clarification of my position. I'm trying to be as explicit as possible so there's no mistaking what that position is. I wanted to make sure that I did not associate agency with action declaration of a specific character.

Are you wanting me to repeat myself about it needing to be your character and get into an arguing match?

You can respond however you'd like, but I'd suggest that you'll get more out of the discussion if you don't leap to conclusions about my intent.


EDIT: wow, I really murdered those tags. Fixed.

 

[FrogReaver]

pretty sure our conversation was over before it started.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Obviously a bad GM can eliminate agency in a large number of ways. My point is (and I think has been, pretty consistently) that "The GM Decides" does not inherently remove agency--especially not if, as you say, the GM limits fiat decisions to cases where it's obvious--I'm kinda willing to allow obvious in retrospect, here, because it might not be obvious at the time but it might be obvious later; I'm willing to acknowledge different opinions on that are possible.

No, GM decides doesn't inherently remove agency, I agree 100%. Again, though, that wasn't the example I was responding to. I fully believe GM decides doesn't prevent agency. I think it's much more likely to negate agency in doses, and much more likely to be abused. But, that doesn't mean you can't approach it from a principled standpoint and have a great game with enough agency for the participants to be happy. Not everyone will like that flavor of agency, and that's okay.