A Question Of Agency?

[prabe]

Again, I don't think that complicated success necessarily mixes "failure and success." It adds complications and consequences.

As I said in response to @darkbard :

Let me try this formulation: "Success" is "getting what you want, and not what you don't." "Complicated success" by adding something the player/character didn't want, turns success into failure.

I dunno if that makes things any clearer. Kinda hope so (because I don't enjoy being misunderstood).

For example, let's take the Wizard in Dungeon World who Casts a Spell:
How is 7-9 "partial failure"? You succeed with the spell. But now you have a choice of the consequences. Taking an ongoing penalty isn't failure. Drawing attention to yourself is something the GM would likely do anyway in a game like D&D. Forgetting the spell is not far removed from Vancian casting and forgetting or casting a spell and losing the spell slot regardless of whether it succeeds or not. But not all of these happen to you. So if you are more failure averse, then choose to forget the spell or draw unwelcome attention to yourself. But I'm not clear how this would necessarily constitute partial failure when the spell cast still succeeds on a 7-9. Do you view yourself as a partial failure in D&D when your spell causes the monster to consider you a threat or look your way? That would be news to me as most people see it as a natural consequence of the fiction. Or losing the spell cast until next spell preparation? Sounds like a typical adventuring day in D&D. Is this now a partial failure too?

Given my formulation, "success" in this instance is "casting the spell and not forgetting it (and not having it disturb the fabric of reality)." The enemy responding tactically is a natural consequence to any action, and I honestly wouldn't expect complete success at casting the spell to remove the possibility of it (as in, I wouldn't object to it happening on a 10+), but any of the other two consequences would feel like failure, because I'm getting something I don't want as a result of the check.

I never cared much for Vancian casting--it was one of the first things I worked to houserule away, in 3E to the point of outlawing sorcerers and having everyone else work a lot more like 5E works now. Spell slots--as a way to model the ability to direct spell energy--never bothered me the same way.

I apologize if this is coming across aggressively, but I'm having my own hurdle trying to understand how complicated success constitutes a "partial failure".

You aren't coming across as aggressive--at least not to me. I completely get how extreme bafflement can generate strong reactions.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

I honestly don't think there is a real conflict in these definitions, though. Freedom to operate freely in the setting is a manner of agency. Narrative authority by players beyond declaring what their characters do is another manner. A further manner.

I'd say that allowing a player to declare actions for their character is almost the baseline level of agency, and if it is absent then likely something has gone very wrong.

Games that allow players to more definitively shape the fiction than just that baseline of declaring actions allow more agency. I don't even really see how this is up for debate.

It seems that because the conversation largely assumes agency is a good thing, that any reduction of it is a reduction of good, and no one wants to admit that their game is less good......so they insist that their game has all the good. All the agency.

But it's just not the case. My 5E game allows less player agency than my Blades in the Dark game. That's not a bad thing. The game is designed that way, after all.

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.

I can understand this, and I've done it myself, although more so in the past than I would today. Because it absolutely is reducing the players' agency. If the fight is too easy....then the fight is easy. Let the results stand. I get the idea of trying to preserve the status of a threat that's been built up, but the game isn't about preserving my ideas of what it is about.

If the encounter is too hard.....then maybe they need to approach things differently than trying to fight? Maybe they need to negotiate or run away?

Typically, the GM would only do these things if they had an expected outcome, which could even be something like "after a difficult battle, the PCs emerge victorious!"

Well, I'm clearly weird (which I knew).

Let me try this formulation: "Success" is "getting what you want, and not what you don't." "Complicated success" by adding something the player/character didn't want, turns success into failure.

I have been turning things over in my head, thinking about this, and I have further come to realize that a resolution mechanic that A) had greater odds of uncomplicated success and B) allowed the player/character to choose to accept a complication-esque consequence to turn failure into success would bother me a good deal less. I'm sure a game exists with such mechanics, I just can't bring any to mind at the moment.

I don't think that your definition of success can ever really exist. I mean, in D&D the PCs want to win the fight with the evil necromancer and his undead minions. Ultimately, they do win.....but it took some resources, and no one emerged unscathed. Would you say that they failed to win the fight?

I feel you are applying the concept of success far too broadly. I mean, my PC wants to jump the chasm. That's his goal, and that's what the roll is for. In the case of BitD and most PbtA games, the roll is also folding in several other rolls (the kind typically made by the GM in D&D and similar games) into that roll.

So, to kind of compare it to combat in D&D, the player makes a roll to attack the orc. Then the orc and everyone else involved in combat would get a turn of some kind. The equivalent roll in BitD/PbtA games would encompass the orc's response, and potentially his allies' responses as well, depending on what had been established already. Each individual roll is doing more than what a roll in D&D does.

one that tries to mix failure and success

I don't think that's an accurate way to look at it. Complication is not a failure.

I realize I may be beating a dead horse here, and I don't mean to.....I just think that your take on this is skewed by a bit of flawed reasoning.

 

[prabe]

I don't think that your definition of success can ever really exist. I mean, in D&D the PCs want to win the fight with the evil necromancer and his undead minions. Ultimately, they do win.....but it took some resources, and no one emerged unscathed. Would you say that they failed to win the fight?

No. But I don't consider getting hurt in a fight to be failure. I'd consider it failure if some other goal--maybe some part of why they were fighting the necromancer--were made more difficult as the result of the fight.

I feel you are applying the concept of success far too broadly. I mean, my PC wants to jump the chasm. That's his goal, and that's what the roll is for. In the case of BitD and most PbtA games, the roll is also folding in several other rolls (the kind typically made by the GM in D&D and similar games) into that roll.

So, what the character jumping from one building to another is to make the distance, land safely, and not attract attention. Most of the complications I've seen proposed for a complicated success on that jump check have been to either have that character land badly (and get hurt) or get noticed; both of those feel like failure to me.

So, to kind of compare it to combat in D&D, the player makes a roll to attack the orc. Then the orc and everyone else involved in combat would get a turn of some kind. The equivalent roll in BitD/PbtA games would encompass the orc's response, and potentially his allies' responses as well, depending on what had been established already. Each individual roll is doing more than what a roll in D&D does.

Yeah, especially when it comes to fighting, D&D is much more ... granular, I think I want to say, which makes using combat to talk about success/failure ... not the best choice, I think.

I realize I may be beating a dead horse here, and I don't mean to.....I just think that your take on this is skewed by a bit of flawed reasoning.

I think maybe it's just that I'm a "this glass is one-eighth empty" kinda guy ...

 

[nevin]

ok look at it this way then. For some people it's an unnecessary complication that adds nothing they want to the game. They want a simple mechanic and they just want to play.

Some people like complications and it enhances thier play experience.
Those groups of people generally don't play together because they detract from each others fun.

I don't think it's Flawed reasoning to feel a complication in the expected outcome is not a full success. Some people only consider unqualified successes to be successes. I'm sure they'd tell you that it's your reason that is flawed. Thus all the fights over it on the 2e paizo forums.

Both playstyles are legitimate and it's perfectly fair to not want to play the one you don't like.

 

[Aldarc]

As I said in response to @darkbard :

I dunno if that makes things any clearer. Kinda hope so (because I don't enjoy being misunderstood).

Kinda, but still baffling because, as I see it, you still got what you wanted. If I only measured "success" by avoiding unwanted consequences, then every combat in D&D would be a failure because it often involves a loss of HP, narrative complications, or other resources. So why is it partial failure and not complicated success? Much as @hawkeyefan says, a fight will still often require that you expend resources to succeed: e.g., HP, spells, abilities, etc. A complicated success often operates in this vein. You may have to spend resources to achieve your goals. That's the point.

For example, if I was writing a college paper and it required me to "pull an all-nighter" (likely a 7-9), then I successfully wrote that paper. I may experience consequences (e.g., loss of sleep) but I succeeded. I don't think I ever considered my success in pulling an all-nighter as a "partial failure."

Given my formulation, "success" in this instance is "casting the spell and not forgetting it (and not having it disturb the fabric of reality)." The enemy responding tactically is a natural consequence to any action, and I honestly wouldn't expect complete success at casting the spell to remove the possibility of it (as in, I wouldn't object to it happening on a 10+), but any of the other two consequences would feel like failure, because I'm getting something I don't want as a result of the check.

These seems like you are circularly defining success only as the optimum outcome rather than completion of the intended goal: e.g., to hit, to cast, etc.

So, what the character jumping from one building to another is to make the distance, land safely, and not attract attention. Most of the complications I've seen proposed for a complicated success on that jump check have been to either have that character land badly (and get hurt) or get noticed; both of those feel like failure to me.

The consequence of failure is not making the jump at all. You made the jump. You're still alive. How is that failure? If the difference is death or bruised ribs, which is actually failure? I don't think, for example, when we watch "success with complication" transpire on TV or movies that we necessarily think, "Oh, man. The protagonist is a failure because they made it across the chasm with a bruised ribs or attracting the guards." We generally think, IME, more along the lines of "Wow. They're lucky to have made the jump at all."

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

What you describe here seems like a perfectly normal traditional RPG, except perhaps some things that are more codified in the rules. GM frames the scenes. Characters have backgrounds and motivations and relationships. The GM creates a campaign premise and a get's a buy in for that from the players. And of course players can come up with agendas for their character's in any game. Now I am still even more perplexed what your objection was with my claim that the GM has to make up and decide a lot of stuff, because nothing in this precludes that.

Any game, DW included, has to obviously cater to a range of 'table dynamics'. So, at least in practice, there are a range of possible scenarios and outcomes. A GM could simply state (or a group could simply nominate) a DW game, and it could literally just start with 6 people sitting down at a table, assigning a GM, and starting play. The DW process and principles will guide what happens next, and no initial "GM concept" is REQUIRED. OTOH an individual could say to some group of people "Hey, I want to run a DW game with a 'Zombie Apocalypse' theme." Assuming a group of players assembles to that theme, then clearly this is a GM established theme. IN NO CASE would a DW game include a whole pre-built world equivalent to a D&D module or setting. You COULD set a DW game in a pre-existing 'world', but the geography of that game would have to be such that there were 'blank spaces on the map' and a good bit of who everyone was and what they were up to was left to be defined. You could combine a 'thematic concept' of a GM along with a pre-existing setting even. Even then the setting would need to be 'loose' enough to allow for insertion of elements at various scales during play.

So, yes, DW allows for the GM to make up stuff, but very little 'stuff' is supposed to be made up. A 'front' for example is maybe a hand-written page of notes, at most. It might get more elaborate as it is played through, but it should start as very much an outline. A map must have 'holes in it' (literally, this is mandated) which will be filled in directly during play in order to further the agenda. Likewise steadings are to be developed purely as needed, though it is likely that the most basic parameters of whichever one hosts the PCs might be established in a scene described by the GM as a soft move. It is even possible a player would describe it as part of background or Spout Lore or something like that. Note how DW is normally meant to start 'in media res', so it is quite possible the PCs are in the middle of the Gnatbite Swamp in scene 1. If the Ranger says "what is the quickest way out of the swamp?" the GM would respond "I don't know, what is the quickest way out." and the player would be expected to respond "Oh, the Shadow Hills are just a couple miles to the north." The players then make a move, lets say "Undertake a Perilous Journey" to go north to the hills, and so on and so forth, with that move indicating some sort of check(s). Here the GM gets to influence the story, does failure mean the PCs got lost, or does it mean they walked into a big patch of quicksand and are now stuck? The GM might also narrate specific scenes of the travel, with Defy Danger perhaps to avoid quicksand or whatnot. Here we see the GM has distinct input, but again remember the principles, he's going to frame scenes that allow the PCs to shine, to potentially show how awesome they are, and to play to find out how their bonds and such play out. The GM could use a front to produce a move here too, which would be a more DM-centered kind of action, but the front should still be designed to complement what the players agenda is.

 

[prabe]

Kinda, but still baffling because, as I see it, you still got what you wanted. If I only measured "success" by avoiding unwanted consequences, then every combat in D&D would be a failure because it often involves a loss of HP, narrative complications, or other resources. So why is it partial failure and not complicated success? Much as @hawkeyefan says, a fight will still often require that you expend resources to succeed: e.g., HP, spells, abilities, etc. A complicated success often operates in this vein. You may have to spend resources to achieve your goals. That's the point.

Yeah, and as I said in response to @hawkeyefan I don't consider spending resources necessarily partial failure. In the case of combat, partial failure would have to affect some other goal.

For example, if I was writing a college paper and it required me to "pull an all-nighter" (likely a 7-9), then I successfully wrote that paper. I may experience consequences (e.g., loss of sleep) but I succeeded. I don't think I ever considered my success in pulling an all-nighter as a "partial failure."

Some people might call needing an all-nighter to write a paper an error (or failure) of planning. ;-) Others might consider it a choice of approach.

The consequence of failure is not making the jump at all. You made the jump. You're still alive. How is that failure? If the difference is death or bruised ribs, which is actually failure? I don't think, for example, when we watch "success with complication" transpire on TV or movies that we necessarily think, "Oh, man. The protagonist is a failure because they made it across the chasm with a bruised ribs or attracting the guards." We generally think, IME, more along the lines of "Wow. They're lucky to have made the jump at all."

Eh. Authored fiction (like a movie or TV show) is different from the fiction that emerges from TRPG play in ways that make this sort of comparison ...fraught, IMO. (And I hope if I'm using terms you're not used to that you still understand my point.)

 

[Thomas Shey]

I don't find this persuasive, though. This is a discussion about how things work, and therefore preferences are fair game to be challenged and analyzed -- largely because you can't fully understand a game until you understand your own preferences. I get this may not be something a person is inclined or willing to do, but if that's the case, why engage at all?

Because you still need to engage with people's preferences here in the wild whether they're able or willing to engage with their reasons or not.

This is the issue to me: I GM probably 95% of the time, and have a relatively flexible set of expectations when I don't. So it doesn't really matter what I feel about this. It very much matters what my players do, however, and I've seen enough of this to believe this is an area where a fairly strong reaction to some of this exists. So I get to engage with it whether someone else thinks their preferences here are incoherent or not.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That is absolutely not my understanding of what a "plot hook" is. Plot hooks are things that try to engage the players in the GM's plot, which often take the shape of things that interest the players. But an interesting thing isn't a plot hook if there's no plot there. I mean, it's right there in the term -- plot hook.

Right, what I would say about a plot hook is that it is literally descriptive. It is a device which 'hooks' the player. If the hook is 'taken' then some sort of plot attached to it is engaged. An example might be "A shadowy figure waves at you as you pass the alley." The player could decide his character takes the 'hook' and enters the alley, or not. Whatever happens next must surely have been devised by the GM, and then the attached plot (a mugging, a meeting with an informant, whatever) happens. Presumably this event at least potentially leads somewhere.

Now, contrast that with what might happen in a narrative focused game. In the course of resolving some action, or framing the next scene relating to whatever agenda the PCs are pursuing, a shadowy figure might wave at the PCs from an alley. If this is in response to a player rolling a success/success with complications, then the player will presumably know what it is about, they will have defined the INTENT of the action! If the GM is framing a scene/making a move/etc. then perhaps the player cannot immediately tie it to something specific, but there will be SOME sort of relationship to whatever they are up to. At worst it might be a 'hook' to the extent that it might be an attempt by the GM to engage with some latent agenda (maybe shift the spotlight to another PC or something). That might happen if, say, the previous story arc had played out to a point of resolution. In DW this is likely to be a 'front move' of some kind.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I didn't ask you to prove not-X -- that would be silly. I asked you to show any evidence that thinking of success with complication as failure is even relatively prevalent. There's lots and lots of discussions about success with complications or even tiers of success, so this isn't a case of not-X, it's a case of any-X.

And most of the people who talk about that are going to be preselected for people who find it a useful design feature, and thus presumably not hostile to it. I've never suggested that isn't relatively prevalent--in fact I mentioned it clearly is because of the popularity of PbtA games--but you can absolutely have a large populace of X while still having a large populace of hostile-to-X, and this is an area where I don't believe there is any practical way to say the latter is a small populace when there are a very large number of games that don't do it (at least in an obvious way, to address your other argument) so they're already well served.