A Question Of Agency?

[Crimson Longinus]

This is why Burning Wheel has a GM. The GM uses his/her judgement (see eg the GM deciding what happens when Thurgon and Aramina fail to command Rufus). The GM comes up with interesting things (eg deciding that Rusus is on his way to pick up wine for "the master"). The GM comes up with surprising things (eg that Thurgon's younger brother has gone south in search of glory).

Yet IIRC you noted that my example of the GM giving motivations and plans for the orcs was the GM setting up a 'quest' or 'plot' which is a feature of a low player agency game, yet those things the GM does here are the same thing...

Notice how in the example of play I posted there is not point at which I (as the player of Thurgon and Aramina) ever had to switch from an "in-character" to a "narrator" perspective. All I did was say what Thurgon and Aramina were doing.

This is a recurring feature of discussion on these boards: one poster sets out an example of, or an account of, RPGing that involves player agency; and another poster responds by expressing his/her dislike of quite a different thing (ie shared storytelling and narrator perspective). I don't quite get why

I think that in another example you said that a player could use their circles to declare some people they know are present, maybe Rufus was 'summoned' this way too? And you said that the GM couldn't fully independently set the identity or the motivations of the 'master'. These are narrator stance things.

Anyway, I think your framing of this is rather weird. You're super focused on 'action resolution' and mechanics. Those are ultimately a tiny part of a RPG. Outside resolutions of specific actions there is shitton of other stuff the GM (or someone) has to make up, (what is there, what they're doing, what are their motivations and million other things) which affect the direction the game massively. So how decides these things? Either the GM sets up these, which in effect is them setting up 'plot hooks' etc which according to you is lowering player agency, or the players decide these, which is the players assuming the narrator stance.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Maybe it will seem less odd if I point out that I see "success with complication" as "partial failure." And yes, I think I do prefer failures that don't pretend to be successes.

I think 'success with complication' or 'partial failure' are often good results in a situation where the task resolution roll failed, but very narrowly (or perhaps if it succeeded very narrowly, depending you like to look at it.) Anyway, they're a good tool for making the task resolution less binary. (I like systems with degrees of success instead of simple pass/fail.)

 

[prabe]

I think 'success with complication' or 'partial failure' are often good results in a situation where the task resolution roll failed, but very narrowly (or perhaps if it succeeded very narrowly, depending you like to look at it.) Anyway, they're a good tool for making the task resolution less binary. (I like systems with degrees of success instead of simple pass/fail.)

In principle I don't have a problem with degrees of success. I think of them more for appropriate skill/ability checks (and I prep them as such from time to time in my 5E campaigns). I'm not sure I like them for everything, though, and I really don't like them as something that "drives the fiction" as @hawkeyefan puts it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Maybe it will seem less odd if I point out that I see "success with complication" as "partial failure." And yes, I think I do prefer failures that don't pretend to be successes.

I feel that it’s a pretty skewed view of what Success w/Complication is. I mean, even if you do view it as a partial failure, how is a complete failure preferable to a partial failure?

Blades in the Dark....which took its inspiration from Apocalypse World....allows for three results when dice are rolled. D&D is largely binary Succeed/Fail, unless the GM decides to bring in some measure of degrees of success or similar, but that’s not the default.

 

[prabe]

I feel that it’s a pretty skewed view of what Success w/Complication is. I mean, even if you do view it as a partial failure, how is a complete failure preferable to a partial failure?

Because it's less complicated (heh, heh)?

Seriously, it's as much about the odds as anything else. I don't think a complicated success should be twice as likely as an uncomplicated one; I don't think that failure should be five times as likely as success. The desperation those odds create seems to be necessary for the games to generate the stories they want to; I don't like to play games with that sort of desperation baked into the mechanics.

 

[hawkeyefan]

In principle I don't have a problem with degrees of success. I think of them more for appropriate skill/ability checks (and I prep them as such from time to time in my 5E campaigns). I'm not sure I like them for everything, though, and I really don't like them as something that "drives the fiction" as @hawkeyefan puts it.

This post makes me think of a couple of things.

First, you’re making a distinction on the kind of actions that might be suited for degrees of success, you mention skill/ability checks in particular. Is there a reason for this distinction? And what types of rolls would you say are not suited for degrees of success?

Would you put combat rolls into that category? If so, do you use static damage?

Second, the way that Blades (and many PbtA games) function relies on there being consequences. This is what I mean by “drives the fiction”. Consequences, or at the very least the threat of them, are essential because the GM doesn’t have any turns. Failure after failure will result in PCs quickly burning through all their resources just to stay alive and have no progress to show for it. Full success after full success and things will be a breeze. That middle ground of 4-5 Success with Complication is what allows things to move forward, while still ratcheting the tension up. Yes, the PCs are moving toward their goal, but there have been costs of some kind.

 

[prabe]

This post makes me think of a couple of things.

First, you’re making a distinction on the kind of actions that might be suited for degrees of success, you mention skill/ability checks in particular. Is there a reason for this distinction? And what types of rolls would you say are not suited for degrees of success?

Some things are pretty clearly binary: Jumping, climbing, finding the secret door.

Some things are less clearly binary: Performing, researching, many social interactions.

Would you put combat rolls into that category? If so, do you use static damage?

Nope. You hit or you miss. I roll for damage, because static damage is boring (which is probably a legacy of 40+ years of rolling for damage).

Second, the way that Blades (and many PbtA games) function relies on there being consequences. This is what I mean by “drives the fiction”. Consequences, or at the very least the threat of them, are essential because the GM doesn’t have any turns. Failure after failure will result in PCs quickly burning through all their resources just to stay alive and have no progress to show for it. Full success after full success and things will be a breeze. That middle ground of 4-5 Success with Complication is what allows things to move forward, while still ratcheting the tension up. Yes, the PCs are moving toward their goal, but there have been costs of some kind.

I was going to ask this: It seems (IIRC) as though Blades (at least--this might apply to PbtA games as well) really wants "success with complication" to be the most-common result. Is that right?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Because it's less complicated (heh, heh)?

Seriously, it's as much about the odds as anything else. I don't think a complicated success should be twice as likely as an uncomplicated one; I don't think that failure should be five times as likely as success. The desperation those odds create seems to be necessary for the games to generate the stories they want to; I don't like to play games with that sort of desperation baked into the mechanics.

Well, there are a lot more resources that players can bring to bear on these rolls to improve their chances or the results.

But even then, you’re really ignoring the actual math as it’s explained in the book. With 1 die, you have a 50% chance to succeed. A character who has zero dice in an action would normally roll 2 dice and take the lower roll. That character can push the roll so that they get 1 die and then have a 50% chance to succeed at something they aren’t even good at.

Yes, some of the time when characters succeed at something, something else will happen that they likely didn’t want. That doesn’t negate their success.

It’s also no different than your typical combat turn in D&D. When my fighter hits the orc it doesn’t mean he also gets to avoid being attacked in return, or hit by the orc’s archer pal, or charmed by the orc shaman.

 

[prabe]

Well, there are a lot more resources that players can bring to bear on these rolls to improve their chances or the results.

But even then, you’re really ignoring the actual math as it’s explained in the book. With 1 die, you have a 50% chance to succeed. A character who has zero dice in an action would normally roll 2 dice and take the lower roll. That character can push the roll so that they get 1 die and then have a 50% chance to succeed at something they aren’t even good at.

Again: I see "complicated success" as "partial failure" so as I see it on one die you have a 5-in-6 chance of failure. That's not even baseball chances of success. And I've played enough boardgames that involve piles of d6s to know how many dice I need to ensure a 6 (usually about twenty, with my dice luck).

Yes, some of the time when characters succeed at something, something else will happen that they likely didn’t want. That doesn’t negate their success.

It’s also no different than your typical combat turn in D&D. When my fighter hits the orc it doesn’t mean he also gets to avoid being attacked in return, or hit by the orc’s archer pal, or charmed by the orc shaman.

People use that comparison (to D&D combat) often, I think, and I don't think it's entirely accurate. The fact that the orc you attack (and any friends he has) gets a chance to retaliate if you don't do enough damage to kill him doesn't mean you didn't succeed at hitting him.

 

[aramis erak]

So...does that mean I'm railroading my players because I use systems that don't specifically give them the option of making up details of the campaign world???

THe question isn't if they get to make stuff up... it's whether their decisions are informed (based upon available knowledge at decision time) and that decisions makes a difference in the game state and/or fiction state (in other words, the outcome is based upon their decision).
If you aren't providing adequate information, based upon the current game and story states, then there's no agency because the decision is based upon less data than the character should have.
If their decision has no impact, that is, you haven't an idea before their decision of what the outcomes will be before they decide, then agency is lost because their decision has no meaning.

Only YOU can answer the latter part. Your players have a valid view on the first - occasionally, you might want to ask if they feel they've known what their characters should before decision time - but again, you as GM have a better fix overall. So, ask yourself, "Are my players getting the information to make a reasonably informed decision, and do I have two or more outcomes in mind that make a difference in story and game states before they decide?"