Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[Maxperson]

Which has more or less doubled your ability to express agency over - well, anything; while reducing mine to near zero other than what you specifically permit me to have.

Not really. As a high level wizard I have tons of spells, but can only use one per round. Having more options doesn't give you more agency. It just gives you more options. It's just that now among those options I have your abilities to choose from.

It's more like you've taken my stuff, meaning now you've got two people's worth of resources while I have none.

I still can't use it all at once, so my agency is the same.

 

[Lanefan]

Not really. As a high level wizard I have tons of spells, but can only use one per round. Having more options doesn't give you more agency. It just gives you more options. It's just that now among those options I have your abilities to choose from.

And, don't forget, my turn on which to choose them, as well as your own.

 

[Manbearcat]

OK, but what about gain of agency? Shouldn't that be just as bad? (I ask because nobody ever mentions it).

I mentioned it upthread when I discussed BECMI/RC and sandbox hexcrawls. More specifically, how the fundamentals of the delve/crawl become muted (and in some key cases, into extinction) because characters become able to obviate obstacles/conflicts (Spellcasters through spell breadth/potency) and essential rules interactions (mundane characters through Treasure like Heward's Handy Haversack et al) such that the integrity of the premise of play becomes compromised.

This is a well-known phenomenon in D&D and why Moldvay Basic and Torchbearer are the models for delving (because the rules interactions are perfect and agency is sufficiently constrained to keep the struggle online).

 

[Manbearcat]

@prabe

Here is where I think your analysis of Fate hits a snag. I also wonder if it intersects with the conversation about mundane "mind control."

1) The Aspect/Compel tech in Fate has been cribbed (at least in spirit) by many other games. At its core, it boils down to (a) player signals to table-at-large that they want thematic thing x to be a cornerstone of their character's conflict (both subversive and a bulwark...as cornerstones tend to be), (b) hence test this thing, (c) hence, I accept that the collision of (a) and (b) will likely lead to a severe challenge to the conception of my PC up-to-and-including an evolution where thematic thing x changes (perhaps flipping on its head entirely).

2) Neuro/cognitive science consensus has accreted around the theory that human agency is considerably less than what individual human perception believes it to be and what civilization is premised upon.

3) I not only don't bat an eye about the idea of a combination of exogenous (social pressure, circumstance) and endogenous (the endocrine system, someone's conception of themself, perception bias, genes that have been turned on with no will being in the mix) leading to a loss of agency in mundane circumstances (an American PoW in a Chinese PoW camp falling prey to the slow trickle of "re-education" machinery, someone becoming smitten by another person to the point of behavior they would consider deranged upon introspection, a false confession after someone has been in a traumatic situation and then leaned on for 36 hours by the police, a person who is typically lacking in aggression and physicality finding themselves kicking a downed person when incited mob behavior and social pressure converge, someone who is simultaneously riddled with extreme self-doubt but saddled with an extreme sense of purpose, etc)...but the visceral experience of habitation becomes increased in proportion.

If I'm playing a real person (even a hero) who could fall prey to any number of the mundane agency-stealing moments of life (which every_single_person can have their perceived autonomy taken from them...because biology)...and I have it imposed on me (as happens in real life...its not a choice), that enhances immersion for me. Autonomous pantomiming falling prey to something (addiction or any of the things I mentioned above)? I struggle to find how that could remotely be immersive? How is it rewarding and/or bulwarking to one's conception of self when the integral "internal struggle to overcome" isn't actually integral or sincere...it (the struggle and the output of that struggle) becomes borderline farce (from a first principles perspective).

 

[Maxperson]

And, don't forget, my turn on which to choose them, as well as your own.

Not really. If you want total control, it takes your action. If you want to give a simple command and not take total control, it's free, but you don't have access to everything at that point. It's still not increasing PLAYER agency, though. The PC, sure. It can do more. The player, no. The player is still affecting the fiction just the same as before. Only the player who has lost control and cannot affect the fiction at all has an agency change.

 

[pemerton]

"Non skilled play" or "non Gamist" seems much broader though, encompassing for instance railroad gaming with pre written story, as well as Pemertonian Scene Framing and heavy Narrarivist Exploration of Premise, right through to non RPG round robin story creation games.

Agreed, but that's why I've been using it.

I'm looking for a term that can cover those things, and therefore can say things like: If you want to do that particular sort of RPGing, you might be better of with this set of techniques (eg scene framing) rather than this other set of techniques (eg fudging and railroading).

The previous paragraph rests on my enduring belief that there are some people who are trying to get something out of RPGing - "story", for lack of a better word - without having quite the right set of techniques.

 

[pemerton]

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?

Off the top of my head, the main RPG I can think of that regularly limits the ability of players to declare actions for their PCs is D&D - via mechanics like domination, paralsysis, unconsciousness, etc. But obviously D&D is very popular.

There are RPGs that in many ways are inspired by D&D - eg Rolemaster - that have simllar mechanics.

But I don't think D&D is what yu have in mind. That's why I'm curious about whay you do have in mind.

 

[pemerton]

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?

There's no difference. That's why, in 4e D&D, there is a monster - I think a type of chained demon - that is able to establish a (mechanical) dominate effect because (in the fiction) it has wrapped its chains around the PC and is manipulating the PC like a marionette.

EDIT: I looked it up: the creature is a Gorechain Devil.

From p 65 of the MM2: "These shambling hulks . . . wrap[] their soon-to-be-dead foes in gore-encrusted spiked chains and control[] them like puppets".

The mechanical implementation of this fiction is:

Gorechain Takeover (standard, recharge 5,6)​

Melee 3: +15 vs Fortitude, 3d6+5 damage, and the target is dominated (save ends).​

The dominated condition ends if the target is more than 3 squares away frm the gorechain devil at the start of the target's turn.​

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.

What is an example you have in mind of "lack of that correspndence"?

EG in Traveller, if your PC fails a morale check you either surrender or flee. That's because your PC has lost control of him-/herself.

 

[pemerton]

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 closely connected to the discussion with @Campbell and @S'mon about different sorts of RPGing.

Railroading is a vice of story-oriented RPGing. My view is that it doesn't really make sense to worry about a Moldvay-esque, OSR-ish game being a railroad. The vices of that sort of RPGing are killer dungeons, Monty Haul etc; and related vices are being a "viking hat" GM, etc.

If a game is being run using "say 'yes' or roll the dice" there is no risk of railroading. Players will have agency - it's inherent in that approach. The risk of that sort of game is boring scene-framing and weak consequences.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

High.

I mean.....AC is a thing in the game. Anger class isn't. This is my point. mechanics exist for the combat in order to make things clearly understood. Otherwise, it would be like playing war with your friends in the backyard as kids. "I shot you!"- "NO! I shot you first!!"

No mechanics seem to have been deployed to resolve the insult. This is my point. The DM has decided by fiat that this is impossible, and so no roll is needed.

How does a player assess this kind of situation? The reasoning is hidden, and whether or not mechanics will even be used is unclear.

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.

I disagree. Again, this is my point about the Baron's temperament....the PCs have been given unclear information consisting of narrative details that we cannot understand if or how they translate into game mechanics.

So when the DM says "The Baron is mad, and believes that his festivals of the sun keep his village safe, and he punishes the townsfolk who challenge him." Is this a cue for something the PCs are meant to overcome, such as a high AC? Or is this a cue that the Baron cannot be reasoned with at all? Is it a cue that great care needs to be taken in interacting with him?

You'll insist that it's the last. My point is that there's no way for the players to know that.

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).

Yes, this is a big part of the problem.

Just by looking at them?

Sure, why not? Do you think the PCs look like villagers?

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

It's not just the description....I believe that a gap could develop in that way for many games, if not all.

It's that the players are so reliant on the DM or all iin game info. They have very little way to introduce anything of their own. Combined with potentially unclear mechanics.....mechanics that may not even be used....that's a potentially bad combo. It can be dealt with and avoided.....but it's something to be aware of.

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.

Who says you're suspended over air? My character realized he couldn't make it, and skidded to a halt at the ledge.

The DM absolutely narrates consequences.

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.

A penalty to speed of -10 feet and disadvantage on athletics checks until some kind of magical healing is applied, or until 5 long rests? I mean, that seems fairly reasonable, no? I'd personally prefer that a DM use his judgment in this way rather than to simply shut down certain actions with auto-fail.