A Question Of Agency?

[nevin]

I've noticed a lot of people assume they lose agency if DM fudges a roll here and there. Generally in my experience rolls are mostly fudged in the players favor, or just to make a fight more dramatic so the BBEG doesn't get one shotted. If your playing with DM's who fudges to hurt the players the problem is a lot worse than loss of Agency.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Nowhere in the skill description for Gather Information does it say that it is a skill for perceiving events whose existence is established by the GM. That would be Listen (declared to hear what someone the GM has described is saying).

If there is a city, its major not-obviously-withheld news items can be learned by making a DC 10 Gather Information check. The GM doesn't get to declare the check fails simply because no one is talking that day. (That might be a possible narration of a failed check.)

If the information sort is something more specialised or secret, like a rumour as to the location of the Crown of the Lich Queen, the DC may be higher as the skill description explains.

The successful use of this skill dictates that people who are not the PC are talking among themselves and to the PC, sharing their information. The information is not transmitted to the PC via mind-reading!

What the difference is between people talking and people building isn't any clearer to me than the difference between people blocking with their shields and people building.

'In a city, people are talking' is rather logical assumption, some might even say it is self evident and it would indeed be weird for the GM to rule that this is not the case. (They still could, but unless there was some really good reason for it, it would be terrible GMing.) Similarly it is practically automatic that a city would have some rumours and local goings on as that simply is a part of definition of city. But again what exactly those things are is for the GM to decide.

And you continue your obfuscation of who decides what. In normal 5e D&D it is not assumed that a player can invent a a thing and then declare that they seek information about that thing and this act causing the thing or even the information to exist. If a player just invents a Lich Queen and their crown and declare that they are seeking information about it, the GM is fully within their rights to declare that the character finds out nothing, because the Lich Queen and their crown simply are not things that exist. And even if it was established that they exist, the player cannot just declare that they investigate whether the crown is hidden in any location they happen to be in, and the success causing the crown to appear there.

EDIT:
Also, I thought you originally argued that Burning Wheel has greater player agency than D&D based its different mechanics yet now you seem to be arguing the D&D actually works similarly so I really have no idea what you're even arguing about...

 

[Bedrockgames]

'In a city, people are talking' is rather logical assumption, some might even say it is self evident and it would indeed be weird for the GM to rule that this is not the case. (They still could, but unless there was some really good reason for it, it would be terrible GMing.) Similarly it is practically automatic that a city would have some rumours and local goings on as that simply is a part of definition of city. But again what exactly those things are is for the GM to decide.

And you continue your obfuscation of who decides what. In normal 5e D&D it is not assumed that a player can invent a a thing and then declare that they seek information about that thing and this act causing the thing or even the information to exist. If a player just invents a Lich Queen and their crown and declare that they are seeking information about it, the GM is fully within their rights to declare that the character finds out nothing, because the Lich Queen and their crown simply are not things that exist. And even if it was established that they exist, the player cannot just declare that they investigate whether the crown is hidden in any location they happen to be in, and the success causing the crown to appear there.

EDIT:
Also, I thought you originally argued that Burning Wheel has greater player agency than D&D based its different mechanics yet now you seem to be arguing the D&D actually works similarly so I really have no idea what you're even arguing about...

There is a fundamental divide about what player agency means here. I think for Pemerton it means being able to shape the story, whereas I suspect for you (like me) it has more to do with freedom to operate freely in the setting (but not to shape or control things typically held under the GMs prevue: for example what threat lies in yonder cave). You guys can debate the meanings of the term agency all day long, but I think in the end it boils down to you have different preferences and something that is seen as a moral good in gaming (player agency) is being vied for to win a discussion about play style. These kinds of arguments are generally why I am wary of internet forum gaming discussions, or at least wary of the rhetoric we tend to encounter on them.

On the topic of D&D, generally I don't think most groups assume the player can set things like plot details, monsters, etc by front loading a skill roll with a statement like "I use gather information to find news about the lich queen" (when the GM has made no mention of the lich queen). I think a more standard use would be "I use gather information to find out if there is a Lich Queen" (oddly specific but doesn't have a player inventing a detail that would normally be up for the game master to make). Not sure if that is what Pemerton was arguing though.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I've noticed a lot of people assume they lose agency if DM fudges a roll here and there. Generally in my experience rolls are mostly fudged in the players favor, or just to make a fight more dramatic so the BBEG doesn't get one shotted. If your playing with DM's who fudges to hurt the players the problem is a lot worse than loss of Agency.

Fudging rolls absolutely impacts agency. Agency isn't a universal good, though, and maximizing it doesn't automatically translate into maximizing fun at the table. While I absolutely am personally against fudging, the goal of it is usually to promote a better story, at least from the GM's perspective. This is why it impacts agency -- the GM is substituting their judgement on what makes for the better story over faithfully following through on PC actions.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I've noticed a lot of people assume they lose agency if DM fudges a roll here and there. Generally in my experience rolls are mostly fudged in the players favor, or just to make a fight more dramatic so the BBEG doesn't get one shotted. If your playing with DM's who fudges to hurt the players the problem is a lot worse than loss of Agency.

That relates to how 'agency' is not a clearly defined thing. Like it might seem obvious that the GM fudging would decrease the player agency, but if player declares an intent, and the GM fudges the dice so that the player's intent is fulfilled, then how was the players agency harmed? It could even be argued that it was enhanced...

Also there have various levels to examine. Micro levels of singe rolls, overall goals of the characters and the overall goals of the players. These are all different things. A character's goal might be to defeat the BBEG swiftly and easily, player's goal might be to have an epic and dramatic showdown as a climax of their character's arc. So if the GM tips the scales against the former so that the latter is fulfilled, is that a bad thing and was the player's agency harmed?

 

[Aldarc]

I've noticed a lot of people assume they lose agency if DM fudges a roll here and there. Generally in my experience rolls are mostly fudged in the players favor, or just to make a fight more dramatic so the BBEG doesn't get one shotted. If your playing with DM's who fudges to hurt the players the problem is a lot worse than loss of Agency.

I'm perplexed how narratively advantageous loss of agency does not constitute a loss of agency.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I've noticed a lot of people assume they lose agency if DM fudges a roll here and there. Generally in my experience rolls are mostly fudged in the players favor, or just to make a fight more dramatic so the BBEG doesn't get one shotted. If your playing with DM's who fudges to hurt the players the problem is a lot worse than loss of Agency.

Fudging to prevent a BBEG from getting one shotted definitely impacts agency. That would actually be my go to example. Because in a case of one shot, clearly the player has chosen the right course of action for his or her attack (as it would have one shotted the BBEG had the GM not intervened), but the GM deprives the player of a rightly won victory, in the interest of prolonging the drama. I once had this sort of thing come up in a campaign, where the players swarmed the evil Bishop Lich, who was my big bad, and slaughtered him very anti-climactically. He ended up dying trying to flee out a window (which only added to the lack of climax). One of the players came up after and thanked me, saying it was awesome I let them kill the lich like that because by doing so, he knew I wasn't fudging and was playing all the rolls straight (and that I was respecting their tactical choices).

 

[nevin]

I too can't recall any previous discussions wherein folks claim that success with a complication feels indistinguishable from failure.

go to the Paizo 2e forums and read all the discussions on magic. Partial success is ok sometimes but I completely agree that if it's a normal thing it begins to feel like failure that you can't completely suceed.

 

[nevin]

Fudging to prevent a BBEG from getting one shotted definitely impacts agency. That would actually be my go to example. Because in a case of one shot, clearly the player has chosen the right course of action for his or her attack (as it would have one shotted the BBEG had the GM not intervened), but the GM deprives the player of a rightly won victory, in the interest of prolonging the drama. I once had this sort of thing come up in a campaign, where the players swarmed the evil Bishop Lich, who was my big bad, and slaughtered him very anti-climactically. He ended up dying trying to flee out a window (which only added to the lack of climax). One of the players came up after and thanked me, saying it was awesome I let them kill the lich like that because by doing so, he knew I wasn't fudging and was playing all the rolls straight (and that I was respecting their tactical choices).

While I see your point, DM's make mistakes, sometimes you realize in the middle of the combat that it was a mistake. Most of the time if I do that I simply let the Characters have thier win and story wise the Baddy just screwed up. But story trumps dice. Sometimes to have a good story you have to fudge a roll or two in the course of a game. know if the DM fudges all the time I suspect we'd be closer to agreement. If your suggesting a DM should never ever fudge, We are never going to agree. And that's ok Different Strokes..

 

[nevin]

I'm perplexed how narratively advantageous loss of agency does not constitute a loss of agency.

Loss of Agency is taking the players ability to change things away from them. Fudging a die roll because I've overtuned the encounter or undertuned the encounter doesn't prevent them from doing anything they decide to do. Now if I'm fudging rolls to force them to do something I want them to do or railroad the encounter to a predetermined end, or control how the fight ends, sure that's taking agency. Fudging a roll in combat to fix DM Human error's doesn't take away agency anymore than deciding if they fight a monster they can't possibly beat or just throwing an orc at them.

By that logic if I screw up and throw a monster at them that they can't possibly damage in a situation where they can't run away, dropping some of the monsters special abilities that the party doesn't know about so the fight can possibly be won would be taking away their agency. I'd argue it would be giving it back. If DM isn't allowed to adjust as the game goes on he's irrelevant and shouldn't be there. Might as well play a video game.

Most of these discussions seem to assume the DM never makes a mistake and any change in combat or too a die roll is taking control away from the players.