A Question Of Agency?

[Lanefan]

Not in D&D. What the Orc does (or fails to do) is determined by the player's to hit roll.

What is done (or not) to the Orc is determined by the player's to-hit roll and a corollary damage roll if the to-hit succeeds. What the Orc does in reaction is determined by either the game state (e.g. the damage roll takes it to or below 0 thus rules-forcing it to crumple to the ground) or by the DM. Barring compulsion effects, the player has no say over what the Orc does as long as the Orc is in a condition in the fiction (i.e. alive, conscious) to think and act for itself.

The difference between what the Orc does and what is done to it is small, but rather significant I think.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yeah, it's probably tied to it being directly tied to a roll. You try to do something and the dice say "sure but have this thing you didn't want as well" and you try to do something else and the dice say "sure and have this other thing you didn't want as well" and before long all the things you've gotten that you didn't want have penned you in and you're no longer trying to do what you wanted to do but just trying to get out from all these other things you didn't want that landed on you because the dice said so.

As I said, I'm a "this glass is one-eighth empty" kinda guy. ;-)

Okay, I can see that. I don't think that's exactly how Blades plays out, but in way it can be. There's supposed to be conflict, and things are supposed to be dangerous. I think at least with Blades and how it compares to D&D (this may not apply to PbtA and similar games), D&D encourages mitigation of risk. Blades encourages rushing headlong at the risk.

Perhaps that is also a factor?

I might (depending on context) think the PC had screwed something up to be in such a desperate position, but I don't think I'd think they'd failed that particular check. Hope that's clear-ish.

As clear as we're like to get, I think!

Yeah, that's consistent with my understanding of both D&D and Blades. I think I have a strong preference for it being knowable prior to the decision to act. I think if the GM has pre-placed guards on the rooftop, then the character is existing in something more like an objective reality, and there's more possibility to do something to avoid them (like taking a different way in, after suitable reconaissance) than if "guards appear" can be the result of any action-resolution check.

That's something that comes up a lot, and I get it, even if I don't agree. The reason being that when I GM D&D, and just about every GM for D&D that I know, it's trivially easy to add/subtract things from the map at any time, and most do so, at least occasionally.

I'd ask if there was a higher DC to jump quietly, or if there was the possibility of a concurrent Dex/Stealth check to make the jump quietly, possibly at Disadvantage--trusting the DM's judgment, there.

Hrm. If I missed the DC and he gave me the option to land on the other side in a clattering heap, as opposed to falling prone at the guards' feet, taking 3d6 falling damage, I might take that.

Probably about how it looks, from my answers above. Separate Str/Athletics and Dex/Stealth checks--maybe a floating Disadvantage, up to the player (do you want Disadvantage on the Str/Athletics to jump, or on the Dex/Stealth to be quiet about it?). If just the one check, maybe offering some middle ground if they miss the DC by 1 or maybe 2.

That's a great way to handle it, honestly. I may have done it slightly differently, but I think I like your idea better.

So let's say we do it this way, and there's a success on the Athletics check and a failure on the Stealth check. How would you describe that outcome?

This is important: I grokked that you were kidding around, and it's OK. I make fun of my own mental issues, a lot. The gap between my own kinda-blighted outlook and everyone else's amuses me, much of the time. I didn't mean to dump a guilt-trip on you over this.

No need to apologize, I hoped it was clear that I was kidding, but wanted to be sure. Glad to see that was the case.

 

[pemerton]

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.

DW's mechanics are much simpler than 5e D&D's.

And DW player also "just want to play".

Assumptions about "ordinary folks" vs the "unnecessarily complicated" just obscures analysis of how fictional content is established (eg by whom, based on what sorts of considerations).

Ultimately the issue here seemed to be more about differing expectations than the system being used. Now certainly systems can communicate some expectations so in that sense they can be part of establishing shared expectations, but generally I feel that trying to fix people issues with rules is not the most effective approach.

I don't really see how it can be true both that mechanics don't make a difference, and that the Burning Wheel Great Masters-wise checks provokes all the (virtual) ink you've spilled on it!

@AbdulAlhazred's post not too far upthread really got to the essence of this: if the goal of play is to have play focus on the things players care about for their PCs, why use a system and approach that begins from the premise that the GM establishes the setting without regard to such things?

If the goal is for the players, through their PCs, to be able to meaningfully impact the fiction, why advocate for techniques where the GM (overtly or covertly) decides what that impact is?

Now those may not be the goal. If the goal is for the players to be taken on an exciting ride by the GM - and a lot of posts on ENworld suggest that that is the goal of a fair bit of RPGing - then it makes sense to have the GM unilaterally establish the setting and to be the one who decides what the impact on the fiction is of player action declarations. But fairly obviously that is not going to be a high-player-agency game.

 

[innerdude]

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 what if in D&D the DM says to you "Okay, this jump is the longest jump you've ever attempted. You may be able to do it, but there's no way you'll be able to do so quietly. The guards below are almost certain to notice you."; how would you look at that?

What if you make the jump, tucking and rolling to avoid injury, and you come to a stop to see two more guards step from the shadows, drawing their swords? Does the previously undetected presence of more enemies mean that you failed your jump?

This exchange speaks to some of the thoughts I've had while reading through this thread, namely that much of what we perceive as "player agency" is directly tied to the GM's willingness + ability to correctly "frame the fiction" and offer clear information around what's at stake with any given test of skill/ability.

It's interesting to me that the opposition to "success with complication" is described as denying some inherent measure of player expectation --- "As defined by the rules, my dice roll plus modifiers was high enough to succeeded at my action declaration, and should therefore succeed."

For RPG play, the nature of success is ALWAYS constrained/framed by the fictional state in which the action is attempted. From where I sit, it seems a bit . . . odd, I guess, to complain about a rule system that specifically indicates that complications will be introduced. A GM is given full ability to introduce complications ad hoc, at any time . . . but having it hard-coded in the rules is somehow badwrong?

I'd guess some of that stems from the super-old-school dungeon-crawler mindset, where as a player one of the primary goals of play is to be a "smart" player and completely eliminate any and all possible means of failure before attempting anything risky. *Edit --- this isn't necessarily limited to old school dungeon-crawling; in my experience with GURPS, it can also happen when system lethality is very high and the threat of character death is ever-present.

For example, in some groups I've played with, @hawkeyefan 's example of more guards stepping from the shadows with drawn swords would be decried as a "foul", because the GM should have allowed the players/PCs to make an attempt at noticing those guards first. It's a specific type of group social contract, where the GM is only ever allowed to introduce risk in a fashion such that the players have some ability to mitigate it. If you're coming from that narrow view of play, I could see how introducing complications feels like a GM "cheat code", because old-school dungeon crawling is all about "smart" play allowing the player to eliminate risks.

Apocalypse World / Blades in the Dark and their respective offspring very much work against the idea that a key goal of play is to eliminate risks.

 

[pemerton]

It isn't about giving them powers that in a normal game are assumed to belong to the GM.

I've already posted upthread the Streetwise rules from Classic Traveller (1977).

This idea about what is "normal" is a bit frustrating.

Upthread I also quoted the text from 4e D&D PHB and DMG about player-established quests. This doesn't make 4e an "abnormal" game. It just makes it a game that tackles head-on the question of who gets to decide what the game will be about.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The claim about skill use is generally true. But the bigger issue is addressed in the 4e PHB (p 258):

Sometimes a quest is spelled out for you at the start of an adventure. The town mayor might implore you to find the goblin raiders’ lair, or the priest of Pelor might relate the history of the Adamantine Scepter, before sending you on your quest. . . .​

​

You can also, with your DM’s approval, create a quest for your character. Such a quest can tie into your character’s background. For instance, perhaps your mother is the person whose remains lie in the Fortress of the Iron Ring. Quests can also relate to individual goals, such as a ranger searching for a magic bow to wield. Individual quests give you a stake in a campaign’s unfolding story and give your DM ingredients to help develop that story.​

And from the 4e DMG (p 103):

Player-Designed Quests​

You should allow and even encourage players to come up with their own quests that are tied to their individual goals or specific circumstances in the adventure. Evaluate the proposed quest and assign it a level. Remember to say yes as often as possible!​

This clearly contemplates that the player will introduce goals for his/her PC, including facts about parents and fortresses and the like. But it is closer to Dungeon World - informal principles ("say yes") and techniques (conversation between player and GM) - than to Burning Wheel's formal framework of skill checks.

This seems like a broader topic than the skill rolls. I think there has long been a gray area here, and that can often vary a lot from group to group. I wasn't a fan of 4E so I can't really comment on what the norm was in that edition. I do think though that they mention this requires GM approval at least is a nod to the idea that the GM is governing world details and this may be an area in the game, especially if it has to do with something like player family background, where there can be some suggestions offered by the player and if they are acceptable they can be taken up. Again, I don't really know enough about 4E to know what they were driving at here exactly (it is a little unclear to me if they are using quest to mean going on an adventure, or if it is something that is meant to happen in the background). Even in a heavy exploration traditional game, there is going to be some gray when players start asking questions and giving answers about the world (i.e. are there any magic shops over yonder hill?-------which some might argue leads to a magic shop that didn't exist now existing over yonder hill). At the same time, playing D&D up through 3E, I think the default assumption in most groups is players inventing anything in the setting is either an exception or something they should be doing through their character.

Also I don't think a player setting goals for themselves is an issue, even in a very traditional RPG. I mean, I can set goals for myself in real life too. The real issue is how much that goal setting is being allowed to shape the world (and how much of a sense of a concrete, objective world outside the character the GM is trying to create).

In traditional RPGs I think the things you mention above, tend to be handled more as a session zero thing if they do come up.

That said, I am not averse to these kinds of techniques (my main issue is with the rhetoric around them in these threads-----because so many of these terms become wedges for persuading people that play style A or B is better). I just ran a campaign not long ago where I allowed the players to help me create the town and surrounding county. In this case, because the PC was the county magistrate (he had just been assigned there), it actually made some amount of in game sense. But they were also inventing things that would have had nothing to do with how he was administrating the region (for instance inventing a cult in the area that stole babies and sacrificed them to a bird demon). My natural style is more traditional, but I have definitely had fun with play like this. There is a game called Hillfolk which allowed for players to create plot elements and even fabricate peoples and places during scenes, which I really loved (for some reason the way it operated in hill folk felt very immersive to me).

 

[Lanefan]

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.

Which boils down, if I'm reading this right, to you simply want to succeed more often; frequently outright, sometimes with complications.

There's way to take that which are charitable, and others which are not, but either way I somehow don't think you'd like my game very much.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I've already posted upthread the Streetwise rules from Classic Traveller (1977).

This idea about what is "normal" is a bit frustrating.

Upthread I also quoted the text from 4e D&D PHB and DMG about player-established quests. This doesn't make 4e an "abnormal" game. It just makes it a game that tackles head-on the question of who gets to decide what the game will be about.

I am not going to chase through the thread to find this, but I don't really see how a skill appearing in traveller in 1977, shows that something is or isn't how people normally approach the game.

I don't think normal here is being used in an exclusionary way. It is just saying there are ways people generally approach play, and there are widespread assumptions about play. We can debate what those are. Maybe I am wrong on the specifics. But I think you can say "this is how people normally play D&D".

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't really see how it can be true both that mechanics don't make a difference, and that the Burning Wheel Great Masters-wise checks provokes all the (virtual) ink you've spilled on it!

A choice of mechanics is one way to communicate expectations but not the only one (and definitely not the best.)

@AbdulAlhazred's post not too far upthread really got to the essence of this: if the goal of play is to have play focus on the things players care about for their PCs, why use a system and approach that begins from the premise that the GM establishes the setting without regard to such things?

If the goal is for the players, through their PCs, to be able to meaningfully impact the fiction, why advocate for techniques where the GM (overtly or covertly) decides what that impact is?

Now those may not be the goal. If the goal is for the players to be taken on an exciting ride by the GM - and a lot of posts on ENworld suggest that that is the goal of a fair bit of RPGing - then it makes sense to have the GM unilaterally establish the setting and to be the one who decides what the impact on the fiction is of player action declarations. But fairly obviously that is not going to be a high-player-agency game.

This is disingenuous and frankly condescending framing. That the players do not have ability to directly edit the fictional reality doesn't mean they're spectators. @Bedrockgames explained this couple of posts ago better than I could, and more politely than I at this point would bother to.

 

[prabe]

Okay, I can see that. I don't think that's exactly how Blades plays out, but in way it can be. There's supposed to be conflict, and things are supposed to be dangerous. I think at least with Blades and how it compares to D&D (this may not apply to PbtA and similar games), D&D encourages mitigation of risk. Blades encourages rushing headlong at the risk.

Perhaps that is also a factor?

That almost certainly is a factor. Part of it also that the attraction of a heist for me would be planning it out and then making it work, which ... is roughly exactly the opposite of how Blades plays.

That's something that comes up a lot, and I get it, even if I don't agree. The reason being that when I GM D&D, and just about every GM for D&D that I know, it's trivially easy to add/subtract things from the map at any time, and most do so, at least occasionally.

Oh, sure, there's flexibility, but if you play everything zero-myth it feels to me as though everything is sorta indeterminate, with no fixed points for the PCs use for leverage.

That's a great way to handle it, honestly. I may have done it slightly differently, but I think I like your idea better.

So let's say we do it this way, and there's a success on the Athletics check and a failure on the Stealth check. How would you describe that outcome?

Probably exactly how you think: You made the jump, but you attracted the attention of the guards below. This isn't exactly the same thing as having guards on the rooftop because you rolled a complicated success on a straight jump, IMO; among other things, by making it two checks you made the various failure-states pretty clear.

(And if I'm playing that pair of checks I almost certainly take Disadvantage on the Stealth, because being noticed is literally less painful than falling.)