Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[Campbell]

If Storygame is too broad a term to encompass stuff like Sorcerer! I suggest those could be called Author Stance RPGs, as opposed to trad RPGs which are Actor Stance RPGs in Edwards' terminology.

I'm not totally happy with Actor Stance as a tern because it discounts or does not comprehend immersion as a play goal. But Author Stance seems fine for the Edwards play mode.

My preference is to simply call them (particularly post-Forge games like Apocalypse World) roleplaying games. At least in the games I choose to play a player's orientation towards their character is pretty much the same as it is in more mainstream games. The rules cover more of the psychosocial elements of the fiction, but I am just like playing a character. Most of what makes them work differently comes from the ways GMs operate in them.

I honestly think we make too much of the trad / indie divide. A game like Sorcerer has much in common with Vampire Fifth Edition (although not other versions of Vampire), much more in common than either have with Moldvay. A whole host of FATE play has a lot more in common with Critical Role D&D than it has in common with Apocalypse World. Even in the OSR space something like Wolves of God or Godbound is phenomenally different from the delve focus of Nightmares Underneath, The truth is that these distinctions are phenomenally messy.

 

[prabe]

I don't understand what is going on with the reference to "ruling the world / mass mind control" - but do you two have actual play examples of this conjectured "bad faith" appicaiton of "say 'yes' or roll the dice"?

I said I believe it is possible, because I don't believe any game system is foolproof. I do not know that I have played any published games that were so explicit about "Say yes or roll the dice" so I don't have any play examples of good-faith GMing in the style (though I'm sure they exist).

This is a recurrent thing I see on this board. There seems to be this idea that to give players agency involves so-called "narrative control".

That idea is false.

What I said about Blades in the Dark--and especially what I said about Fate--was literally true. Fate literally gives the players the ability to change the facts of a scene by spending a Fate Point, in a way that is explicitly not limited by what their characters can do. It's more like a fourth-wall-breaking cartoon (such as Duck Amuck) where there is animation of an animator's eraser and pencil changing the scene around the characters. That seems pretty explicitly to be both player agency and narrative authority.

I've been pretty clear, I think, about separating player agency and narrative control. Player agency is the ability to change of the fiction; narrative authority is the ability to describe specifics. If a player successfully kicks down a door, that changes the fiction; some games (some tables) have the player narrate the door flying open in the requisite cloud of splinters, others have the GM do so. In Fate I have specifically asked a player (after a relevant roll) "What's going on in this town? Tell me [some number, I think three] things." That is very specifically about narrative authority, I think (though you might prefer a different term for it.

To give players agency in a (non-OSR/"skilled play") game, all that is needed is that that the GM does not use secret/unilateral fiction to declare that action declarations fail. Burning Wheel, Prince Valiant and Coretex+ Heroic all fit this description.

And they do not give the GM more explicit ways to reduce players' control of their PCs. They have nothing comparable, for instance, to D&D's dominate mechanics.

How did the character in your game of Prince Valiant earn their Storyteller Certificate? Genuinely asking because I know literally nothing of the game but from your play examples (which I tend to find confusing, because I don't know the game ... part of why I wish we had a game in common). I know nothing of Burning Wheel or Cortex+Heroic but that they exist, but in Mutants and Masterminds, you can earn Hero Points by accepting negative results, or by having a Drawback (something on your character sheet) come into play, usually in a way that at least indirectly reduces your agency; in Fate, you earn Fate points by accepting Compels, which directly re-frame the scene around your character, sometimes in ways that reduce your agency. Neither of those function in play as anything like D&D's charm/dominate effects (which comparison I think I've seen you make before, so there's a possibility you won't believe me).

 

[prabe]

I wouldn't say degenerate, no, but its certainly not the intent of the design during the playtest (and definitely not the intent of the extremely-curated-for-specific-answer surveys during the playtest).

I have first-hand experience that 5e can be run as a "(very) Poor Man's Dungeon World", it will just fight you because only some of it is amenable to and hacking toward Story Now play (Background Traits, Treating the final Charisma Check in the Social Interacton Conflict mechanics as the DW Parley move, using a static and player-facing spread of DCs for action resolution featuring Success w/ Cost/Complication as the area between Medium and Hard DC) while, holistically, the game is designed to facilitate a very different experience (what I wrote above...which is almost the antithesis of Dungeon World).

Thanks for this answer, too.

I haven't noticed 5E fighting me, particularly, probably because I'm not setting out to run it like Dungeon World (probably because I've never even read a PbtA game), but I'm clear that I'm not running the sort of game WotC envision being played--no published adventure paths for me, thanks; I'm happier by far to let the characters choose their own goals so I can put things in the way of those.

 

[Maxperson]

The dragon has an armor class.

He also has anger issues. We know both. What is the exact armor class based on "The dragon is armored."? If you can't tell me, then it is also vague and you don't have all the information, just like when told about the baron's anger issues.

What is the baron’s anger class?

High.

Do you see the issue now? In this case, the baron's anger class was effectively infinite.

It's not infinite. That's just silly. The dragon has a high armor class. The baron has a high anger class. We know both and can make informed decisions about those things.

The DM deciding that an insult cannot work and failure is the only outcome removes whatever agency the player was trying to exercise.

He can also just decide that you miss your swing. You only get to roll when the outcome is in doubt. You can declare your attack, then the DM narrates the outcome, calling for a roll if the outcome is uncertain(PHB page 7).

It’s entirely up to the DM whether he would recognize the PCs are capable, and possibly more capable than his men could handle. I chose to play him as a madman, not an imbecile, so when I ran Curse of Strahd, he recognized capable opponents when he saw them.

Just by looking at them?

It doesn’t make them do that. But it can lend itself to that. Look at the OP.

No more than any other game where the DM is describing things. D&D doesn't lend itself to that mistake any more or less than those others. It's a person mistake, not a system mistake.

And so are the games themselves. This is just one of the flaws with 5E.

And every other game where a DM, or player for that matter, has to describe anything at all.

If my PC tries to jump a canyon, and he doesn’t succeed....what happens? Does he just skid to a stop at the precipice? Does he land on the other side but maybe takes some HP in damage from a hard impact? Or does he fall into the chasm?

Other come into effect at that point. The attempt was to jump the canyon, so the failure only = did not succeed in jumping over the canyon. However, since you are now suspended over air, the falling rules come into play.

If my PC tries to intimidate a Baron and fails, does the Baron simply remain unintimidated? Is he intimidated, but perhaps more guarded about negotiation? Does he get angry and call for his guards?

I think it’s very clear that a DM can apply additional consequences on a failed roll. I feel like you didn’t really think about what you were claiming. This happens all the time in the game.

5e doesn't have broken bones, though. There's no mechanism to even heal it. If you were to rule that the PC breaks his foot after a failed attempt to break down the door, are you going to just fix the foot after a night's rest? If not, how much time is it going to take? Wounds don't give penalties. Are you going to penalize the PC for the broken foot? He can't walk on it. He can't fight effectively with it. What's that penalty going to look like?

It's pretty clear that the DM is stepping outside of the rules to break the foot.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't know what games limit the ability of players to declare their character's actions in a way that generates dislike. I'm happy to be told about them.

But I think that's a tangent for this thread. @chaochou introduced the phrase player agency to help talk about what was happening in the OP. And the issue with what is going on in the OP is not that the players were forbidden from declaring actions, but that they did not seem to be able to exercise agency over the fiction at a key moment of resolution.

So first, I think the key moment was in the decision to insult the highly volatile baron/burger master/burger king/burger meister/lord/mayor. That player got to do what he wished and it had a tremendous impact on the fiction, and likely achieved what he desired, since he knew an insult would cause the highly volatile baron/burger master/burger king/burger meister/lord/mayor to flip his lid.

Second, they were in fact able to exercise agency over the fiction at the key moment of resolution. One of the other PCs attempted to take the highly volatile baron/burger master/burger king/burger meister/lord/mayor prisoner, but failed his roll, while two other PCs opted to leave the room as their resolution and succeeded. The two PCs who angered and attacked the highly volatile baron/burger master/burger king/burger meister/lord/mayor were taken prisoner by the guards, indicating that they were not in fact more powerful than the highly volatile baron/burger master/burger king/burger meister/lord/mayor(@hawkeyefan)

Seems like agency was all around.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The film The Matrix is all about agency. I think you need to be able to buy into the concept of fictional agency to appreciate a lot of fiction.

I agree 100%, the Matrix is about agency. The characters in the Matrix do not actually have agency, though, being entirely directed by the author's choices and not their own.

This is like saying that you played a game with a dragon. The game was about dragons. There were no actual dragons present, though.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I said I believe it is possible, because I don't believe any game system is foolproof. I do not know that I have played any published games that were so explicit about "Say yes or roll the dice" so I don't have any play examples of good-faith GMing in the style (though I'm sure they exist).



What I said about Blades in the Dark--and especially what I said about Fate--was literally true. Fate literally gives the players the ability to change the facts of a scene by spending a Fate Point, in a way that is explicitly not limited by what their characters can do. It's more like a fourth-wall-breaking cartoon (such as Duck Amuck) where there is animation of an animator's eraser and pencil changing the scene around the characters. That seems pretty explicitly to be both player agency and narrative authority.

I've been pretty clear, I think, about separating player agency and narrative control. Player agency is the ability to change of the fiction; narrative authority is the ability to describe specifics. If a player successfully kicks down a door, that changes the fiction; some games (some tables) have the player narrate the door flying open in the requisite cloud of splinters, others have the GM do so. In Fate I have specifically asked a player (after a relevant roll) "What's going on in this town? Tell me [some number, I think three] things." That is very specifically about narrative authority, I think (though you might prefer a different term for it.



How did the character in your game of Prince Valiant earn their Storyteller Certificate? Genuinely asking because I know literally nothing of the game but from your play examples (which I tend to find confusing, because I don't know the game ... part of why I wish we had a game in common). I know nothing of Burning Wheel or Cortex+Heroic but that they exist, but in Mutants and Masterminds, you can earn Hero Points by accepting negative results, or by having a Drawback (something on your character sheet) come into play, usually in a way that at least indirectly reduces your agency; in Fate, you earn Fate points by accepting Compels, which directly re-frame the scene around your character, sometimes in ways that reduce your agency. Neither of those function in play as anything like D&D's charm/dominate effects (which comparison I think I've seen you make before, so there's a possibility you won't believe me).

So, I think this might be a good time to examine the premises underlying the arguments. I know I, and I believe @pemerton, look at player agency as the ability for the player to make choices about and have the ability to realize these choices within the in-game fiction. To me, declaring actions for my character is just one way to do this. Using a non-PC centered tool is another way. Both achieve player agency.

I think you, and please correct this if I'm off-base, are looking at the primary means of play being through the PC. This is why you see a large distinction between declaring PC actions and resolution of those and a different tool that doesn't involve declaring PC actions. The use of the term "meta-currency" seems to reinforce this. This is, after all, how D&D has traditionally played, so it's not surprising is a common point of reference, nor does it mean this construction is wrong. If that's how you want to play, and you have fun, then it's the best kind of right.

However, when discussing the concept at a high level rather than from the within the frame of how you play, it's a stumbling block for understanding. I can't speak for @pemerton, but I certainly don't see use of a FATE point to add some fiction to a scene, or leveraging a Flashback in Blades as somehow special or set aside from declaring PC actions in pursuit of player agency. They're all just tools in the toolbox. There's nothing inherently special about declaring actions for your PC that elevates it to a higher tier of relevance. Granted, the focus of most RPGs is to inhabit a character, so it's certainly going to be an almost required tool in play, and often the most common tool. But it's not the only tool and it's commonality doesn't mean other tools shouldn't be considered equally in looking at how a player can make choices and realize those choices about the in-game fiction. Though this is usually via a character, it's not a required component to do this.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't know what games limit the ability of players to declare their character's actions in a way that generates dislike. I'm happy to be told about them.

But I think that's a tangent for this thread. @chaochou introduced the phrase player agency to help talk about what was happening in the OP. And the issue with what is going on in the OP is not that the players were forbidden from declaring actions, but that they did not seem to be able to exercise agency over the fiction at a key moment of resolution.

chacochou attempted to turn this into a discussion about agency and succeeded. Now we are talking about agency and not so much about the OP at all. For the discussion about agency the idea of agency over your characters actions matters because some games don't allow as much of that to varying degrees.

To answer the first question I need to know whether it's that you don't know of any games that ever limit a players ability to declare their character's actions? Or whether you think that games do that but everyone likes that part of those games?

 

[Ovinomancer]

chacochou attempted to turn this into a discussion about agency and succeeded. Now we are talking about agency and not so much about the OP at all. For the discussion about agency the idea of agency over your characters actions matters because some games don't allow as much of that to varying degrees.

To answer the first question I need to know whether it's that you don't know of any games that ever limit a players ability to declare their character's actions? Or whether you think that games do that but everyone likes that part of those games?

The OP is, fundamentally, all about agency. We just started talking about resolution techniques first.

 

[FrogReaver]

I think examining a commonly accepted D&D mechanic that takes away player agency over their characters actions will be a helpful exercise.

The Dominate Person spell. Why is this spell acceptable where non-magical implementations of reducing player agency over character actions tend to be found unacceptable? What is the difference?

The Dominate Person spell is an in-fiction method where a character loses control over himself. That is, in fictional terms such a character has no agency over himself. In other words, the loss in player agency over character actions corresponds to a fictional state where the character has lost agency over his own actions. That correspondence is what makes the loss of player agency over character actions acceptable for many people and the lack of that correspondence is what makes them find it unacceptable.