Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[prabe]

Thanks for the help, I only know what others choose to share with me about those kinds of games and so I'm hesitant to answer about them.

No worries. I should be clear that I don't think GMing Fate that way would be entirely in the spirit of the rules (which would make it at least not-good GMing) but the game does seem to presume a more antagonistic GM than I'm happy being (or playing with).

 

[FrogReaver]

No worries. I should be clear that I don't think GMing Fate that way would be entirely in the spirit of the rules (which would make it at least not-good GMing) but the game does seem to presume a more antagonistic GM than I'm happy being (or playing with).

Excellent point. I think though that holding up the possibility of bad GM'ing in D&D as being able to cause such issues allows us to hold up the possibility of bad GM'ing in those games to cause issues as well.

 

[Maxperson]

Well the problem is that the concept of an in-fiction action removing the agency being acceptable is rejected out of hand.

I've seen a lot of people on the other side state that there are times when loss of agency is okay, and that things like Dominate are one of those ways. @hawkeyefan has said something similar in this thread. I've also seen in other threads where people say that any loss of agency ever is not okay.

That's why I introduced the concept of correspondence between what the characters fictional agency over his own actions and the players agency over that characters actions. The notion of that correspondence cannot be rejected out of hand because it's obvious and so it an be held up as a reaosn to explain why in-fiction actions removing such agency are actually acceptable.

I can see the relationship, but I don't see how the correspondence makes it more acceptable. In situation A we have an in-fiction reason(dominate) removing agency from the PC and correspondingly, from the player. In situation B we have an in-fiction reason(persuade check) removing agency fromthe PC and correspondingly, from the player. Both have an in-fiction reason. Both have the corresponding losses. Why is A acceptable and B not? I think it's for the reason I pointed out above.

 

[FrogReaver]

I can see the relationship, but I don't see how the correspondence makes it more acceptable. In situation A we have an in-fiction reason(dominate) removing agency from the PC and correspondingly, from the player. In situation B we have an in-fiction reason(persuade check) removing agency fromthe PC and correspondingly, from the player. Both have an in-fiction reason. Both have the corresponding losses. Why is A acceptable and B not? I think it's for the reason I pointed out above.

I changed my wording a little in my post as it wasn't reading exactly as I intended.

Persuasion is not acceptable for that because no in-fiction persuade attempt has the power to fictionally control a character -> which then leads to a mismatch between your characters fictional agency over their own actions and your agency as a player over their actions.

 

[prabe]

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.

I was thinking about this earlier today, and I think I figured out at least why it doesn't bother me (which may have zero correlation to why it does or doesn't bother anyone else). It's not so much an argument against your point as a different view.

If an illithid Dominates my PC, well, that's something illithids do; it's how they tell their story; it's part of the way the world in which the story is happening works. If a GM forces my PC to behave in a way counter to my wishes via a meta-game mechanic, that's the GM changing my character's story; that's my job (and my character's). I don't mind in-story opposition; out-of-story opposition (I know this from experience) drives me bonkers.

 

[FrogReaver]

I was thinking about this earlier today, and I think I figured out at least why it doesn't bother me (which may have zero correlation to why it does or doesn't bother anyone else). It's not so much an argument against your point as a different view.

If an illithid Dominates my PC, well, that's something illithids do; it's how they tell their story; it's part of the way the world in which the story is happening works. If a GM forces my PC to behave in a way counter to my wishes via a meta-game mechanic, that's the GM changing my character's story; that's my job (and my character's). I don't mind in-story opposition; out-of-story opposition (I know this from experience) drives me bonkers.

So what of a Damsel charming you to do something for her? Let's assume there's some charm mechanic that gets invoked and rolled and you fail/she succeeds and now she has you do X. I get the impression you would be against this but your reasoning above doesn't explain why. Theoretically it's what she does, it's how she tells her story, it's part of the world the story is happening in. It's not a metagame mechanic. So what is different here? Or do I misjudge and you would be okay with this?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Completely Disagree. I talked a lot about how the situation was handled without need for any talk of agency. If anything, I'd say the agency discussion has distracted focus away from the OP.

Sure, you can talk about the OP and not mention agency. You could talk about it and not mention d20s. That doesn't change that both were involved, largely in their absence for the specific point of interest.

I honestly find it somewhat baffling that you've argued multiple different ways to maintain that a GM ruling auto-failure isn't a loss of player agency. I think it is and yet have no issues when running 5e in doing it. I don't think the loss of agency in the OP is a problem -- that really lies in the whys and hows the OP happened. Loss of agency isn't an inherently bad thing. Restricting agency is a fundamental of game design. That loss of agency is implicated in the OP doesn't render anything wrong or bad, but it is a valid tool for analysis because it points to places that need consideration.

Again, loss of or restriction of agency is not inherently bad. Increasing agency is not inherently good.

EDIT: There was an important negation missing from the first sentence of the second paragraph. It is added now. I also changed the second sentence of the same paragraph to be clearer with the negation added. The intent of neither sentence was changed. I've underlined my changes.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I want everyone to notice how this isn't just about discussing what's different about various games and ways of doing things. The ways certain games do things is actually thought of as being flawed. It's responses like this that convince me that most people that try to say a certain gaming methodology has less agency actually mean it as a slight no matter how many times they insist it is not.

Um, if you can't say that a game has flaws (and all games do), then the claim is that a game is perfect. Surely you aren't advancing that?

As @hawkeyefan had repeatedly said, he both runs and enjoys running 5e. I also run and enjoy running 5e. It has flaws. So what? Do you need it to not to?

 

[prabe]

So what of a Damsel charming you to do something for her? Let's assume there's some charm mechanic that gets invoked and rolled and you fail/she succeeds and now she has you do X. I get the impression you would be against this but your reasoning above doesn't explain why. Theoretically it's what she does, it's how she tells her story, it's part of the world the story is happening in. It's not a metagame mechanic. So what is different here? Or do I misjudge and you would be okay with this?

I think I'd resent the NPC, but not necessarily the GM. At least, that's my first instinct. I mean, it's OK for a GM in a supers game to have mind-controlling villains, IMO. Sure, there could be Bad GMing (I feel as though I should trademark that) but Bad GMing isn't a requirement for having an NPC/villain/monster charm or dominate a PC.

 

[Ovinomancer]

All right. In principle--as in, it would seem to be to be by-the-book--a GM in Fate can place a Compel on a character whose player has no Fate Points, and because it costs a Fate Point to turn down a Compel, the player would have no way to refuse it--as I remember the rules, the player isn't even allowed to use that Fate Point in a check generated by that Compel. It is in principle possible for a Compel to be about a character's actions. (The example I saw floated was using a Compel to force a PC to steal something from their employer.) I can think of at least one player who violently dislikes that. (Hint: It's @prabe )

That's a bit off-center. A GM in FATE can offer a Compel, and the player cannot refuse it if they don't have FATE points to spend to counter it, but the only thing the GM can Compel are the traits that the player chose for their character that represent the trouble or issue that character has. In other words, the GM can only compel you to, well, play your character as you defined them. It is a loss of agency? Absolutely -- you aren't making the choice to engage in that flaw right now otherwise. Is it the same loss of agency as a dominate person? Absolutely not -- you did get a choice in what could be Compelled whereas you do not get any choices with Dominate Person. Does this distinction matter? Well, if you're going to be upset at the concept of Compelling and feel it's a usurpation of your right to control your character, then no, not really. But, in a clear analysis, these things are different.