A Question Of Agency?

[pemerton]

that's one minor mechanic in a book otherwise filled with combat and exploration mechanics, which backs my assertion that the designers paid only as much heed to social mechanics as they felt they had to.

I would hope that any RPG designer only pays as much heed to any mechanic as s/he feels s/he has to!

My point was that the designers clearly didn't think that "in-character talk at the table would suffice" (to quote your earlier post once again) - because they included a very important mechanic, linked to the CHA stat, which determines via that modified roll how the GM is to frame the encounter between PCs and NPCs/monsters. As @AbdulAlhazred said, this is where a whole lot of classic D&D hijinks start from. You don't have to have a MU cast Charm Person or Sleep in order to avoid having to fight everything encountered.

A frustration I prefer to lean into, to a certain extent, rather than avoid.

<snip>

For example, if the GM (or the module) has pre-determined that a down-to-business approach will be much more effective with the Duke than will small talk and flattery then if your approach involves a lot of flattery and bootlicking you're not likely to get very far. And even if your PC has no knowledge of these tendencies going in, one or two "Shut up and let's talk turkey" hints from the GM-as-Duke in response to your fawning approach ought to get it across, after which you sink or swim on your own.

This is one half of exactly what I have zero interest in. What is the point of "hints from the GM" to tell the player how to solve the puzzle. Who's playing the game here, the player(s) or the GM solitaire?

If the GM is doing her job halfway well, the outcome that results will stem more or less directly from the approach you took, based on what the GM has decided makes that NPC tick.

And this is the other half: because basically what is happening here is that I'm working through a pre-authored flowchart/decision-tree that is triggered by the players' action declarations.

What you don't mention here, in a write-up of what at face value sounds like a very cool situation, is how much if any role-play went on before the seduction check happened. I mean, if a seduction-check mechanic exists I can see many players saying no more than "I try to seduce her and - hey - double-sixes!"; where I (and I kinda suspect you also) would like to see a lot more roleplaying effort put in before that roll can occur.

I don't really think of play in terms of "roleplaying effort".

The players' main goal was to continue their exploration of the alien vessel Annic Nova without being interdicted. Here's the extract from the actual play write-up I posted in September:

In the last session, the PCs had defeated all the Aliens on board the mysterious starship the Annic Nova

<snip>

The Imperial Navy Cutter Modiphius had caught up with their starship (the laboratory research vessel St Christopher), but the wordsmith PCs - Methwit the "diplomat" (ie spy) and Vincenzo von Hallucida, the noble owner of the St Chrisopher who was being patched through from on-board the Annic Nova - were stalling Commander Lady Askol and her aide-de-camp Marine Lt Kadi.

<snip>

the players decided that more stalling was in order. Their computer programmer on board the Annic Nova, Zeno Doxa, would need a week to have a chance of deciphering the workings of the alien computer. And so Vincenzo proposed that there be further discussions onworld about the strength of his salvage claim over the Annic Nova. He figured that it must be possible to fill a week on a winery tour! With another strong reaction roll Lady Askol agreed to this, and so seven player-controlled characters (Vincenzo and his close friend Leila Lo, the former owner of the St Christopher from whom he won it in a bet; Methwit; the other two noble PCs Sir Glaxon and von Jerrel; and as hangers-on Bobby "the Robber" (handy with an auto-rifle and with Streetwise-1) and Alissa (handy with a cutlass)) and the two NPCs went down to Novus, where for Cr 2,000 per day they had a good time.

<snip>

The players <snippage> came up with a new plan: the St Christopher refuelled and charged its own jump pod, and then with some jury-rigged cables this power was transferred into the accumulator on the Annic Nova. The St Christopher then returned to Novus and refuelled again. A successful reaction check by von Jerrel's player (he has Liaision-1) ensured that the naval authorities on Novus didn't notice the double refuelling. And as it turned out, this was the beginning of von Jerrel's play to seduce Lady Askol.

<snip>

Von Jerrel invited Lady Askol on board the Annic Nova to be personally shown around the vessel; and with another successful check he was able to blow off her aide-de-camp, so she was not accompanied by any other Navy personnel. His reaction roll when he went to kiss her was a natural 12 (on 2d6) and so she didn't notice when the jump drive was activated. It was only when he took her up to the astrogation dome that she realised the vessel was in jump space. Another two strong rolls meant that von Jerrel assuaged her initial outrage and was able to continue his seduction ("I thought that you wouldn't want us to be separated!") - but she did continue to insist that, from the point of view of her official duties, it was a kidnapping and not a desertion.

On re-reading that there were more checks than I recalled - distracting people from the second refuelling, blowing off the aide, and persuading Lady Askol that she hadn't really been kidnapped. For each there was a clear intent as well as task, and the amount of narration from the player would be pretty close to what I've described in this post: a bit of first person, a bit of third person. The key thing is establishing the fiction and how it relates to the intent, so that the action declaration can be meaningfully resolved.

Re-reading this play example, it shows how things can go with a series of successful rolls: a plan to steal a ship from under the noses of Imperial Navy ships worked! Obviously there are other ways to run heists (I've never played BitD or Scum and Villainy, but I gather the latter adapts the former for space rogues) but this one played out pretty nicely.

Not to say that things can't be interesting on failures too - von Jerrel's player has had strings of failures for his other characters in earlier sessions - but for me what it shows is the use of mechanics to determine whether intent is realised or not produces sequences of results that are not predicted or dictated by anyone.

Once things get going after that I'd also probably have one more check at some point surrounding the deception/lie, either by the player if the game had a specific Deception mechanic or by me-as-GM to see on a sliding scale if and-or how hard Lady Askol fell for it...which means - somewhat surprisingly - mechanically we're on pretty close ground here.

To me there seemed to be no reason to call for a check. The earlier outcome was still in force; and there were two further reasons.

One was "internal" to the fictional situation: Lady Askol is INT 5, and so not all that sharp. There is no Bluff skill in Classic Traveller - the rules don't discuss it, but I think it's mostly for the GM to adjudicate based on NPC INT. Perhaps with a check on INT. The upshot is that deceiving via the spoken word is not apt to be a significant crunch-point in play - rather it's a step to something else. If you think of it in terms of AW moves - if you do it, you do it - than there is no when you tell someone a lie move. (Forging documents is a different matter: there is a Forgery skill, and it feeds into the rather intricate subsystems for dealing with officials and bureaucracy.)

The second was "external" to the immediate situation but pretty important at the table: the player (clearly) didn't want Lady Askol to decide that von Jerrel must be deported back to Ashar. And I didn't want that either! So there was no point in calling for a check that would result in such a possibility. (Whereas the earlier checks did involve interesting alternatives - Lady Askol being accompanied by her aide; or being upset at being kidnapped; or noticing the second refuelling which might have resulted in politics on Novus or space combat in its vicinity.)

And an EDIT TO ADD:

In theory 3e had the same proviso, as noted in the PHB (and the DMG?). In practice...well...

<snip>

My point is that the introduction and presence of those mechanics led straight to a "skip to the roll" mentality among a distressingly large subset of players

And would you mind telling me how it works in practice for these games you have no actual experience with?

The point of social mechanics as I see it, and as I hope my actual play example illustrates, is not to "skip to the roll". It's to allow for the determination of outcomes other than via dictation.

If the mechanics are any good, they will need the player to establish what the fiction and intent is that feeds into the resolution. That can be done via 1st person play or 3rd person narration of one's PC - what matters is that we know what (eg) von Jerrel is hoping to achieve - eg to have Lady Askol not hold it against him that she came on board a jumping vessel without her aide.

The problem with 3E's Diplomacy system as I have heard it described (I have almost no experience with it) are:

(1) It is weak on calling for intent, and is focused more on reframing the starting-point of the situation (eg from Hostile to Friendly) rather than on generating some response by the NPC to the PC's action (like Lady Askol's outrage being assuaged);

(2) It's maths are broken.

Solid maths is important in any system. AW has it baked in. Classic Traveller is not quite as tight as AW, but seems mostly to work.

 

[pemerton]

Setting Authority - The ability to establish Setting elements (persons, places, things, backstory).

Situation Authority - The ability to frame some or all initial components a Situation, or the ability to reframe a Situation as play unfolds.

Character Agency - Player Agency excluding any Setting/Situation Authority, expressed exclusively through the vehicle of player character.

I find the concept of Character Agency in this scheme to be rather gerrymandered. And in practice a constraint that is often violated - see the discussions upthread about Gather Information, Foraging/Survival, and the like - which seem to bestow Setting Authority but rarely seem to cause much controversy (because no one feels this is very high stakes and it is "logical" that the locals should be gossiping or that there should be berries to find in the foreset; cf the different response to the setting element being the unique tower of a unique wizard).

I'm also curious where the GM taking suggestions (either formally like item wish lists in 4e D&D, or informally) fits in. That seems like Setting and/or Situation Authority (depending on the content) but is not uncommon, at least in its informal modes, in ostensibly Character Agency-based play.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I would hope that any RPG designer only pays as much heed to any mechanic as s/he feels s/he has to!

My point was that the designers clearly didn't think that "in-character talk at the table would suffice" (to quote your earlier post once again) - because they included a very important mechanic, linked to the CHA stat, which determines via that modified roll how the GM is to frame the encounter between PCs and NPCs/monsters. As @AbdulAlhazred said, this is where a whole lot of classic D&D hijinks start from. You don't have to have a MU cast Charm Person or Sleep in order to avoid having to fight everything encountered.
(eg) von Jerrel is hoping to achieve - eg to have Lady Askol not hold it against him that she came on board a jumping vessel without her aide.

Here I disagree with you. I think what happened is that there was always a certain 'simulation' bent to D&D rules writing. The game originated as a tabletop wargame. With 2e they arrived at 'story teller GM' but with wargame-derived mechanics. This wasn't a 'design', it was just unanalyzed hackery, exigency piled on top of tradition to create an inchoate and incoherent 'system'. From a marketing perspective it has the clothing of D&D, which makes it quite salable, and of course you can play it. Its not a terrible game or anything, but it isn't 'designed' in any way shape or fashion beyond whatever is left of Gygax's original design.

So, skills are just larded on top in a sort of simulationist reflex. There is no concept of how, when, why, or where they should be used. Go through the modules (especially the OA ones) and you will see what I mean. As RP 'background' signifiers they kind of DO work in OA, your Samurai gets 'Tea Ceremony' and this signifies he's cultured, etc. The other ones, derived from the DSG and WSG, are simply "we like the simulation idea of skills, every other game now has them, so we added a bunch of material to create some for these books, look it fills a lot of pages!" 2e just carried them forward. It is telling that all this happened right after Gary left TSR...

3.0 simply carried on with that. There's no coherent design reason for it. Diplomacy in 3.x is not some coherent chosen design decision that indicates that anyone was thinking about anything! IMHO 3.0 was garbage. It was written by people who didn't understand classic D&D AT ALL. It was a mechanical rationalization of the already incoherent non-design that was 2e. In the course of creating it they broke practically everything that was left of the original design of D&D, and in every case those were bad decisions. 3.5 was needed because 3.0 was a HOT MESS. Half the classes didn't work at all, casters were so OP it was not even funny, and then fundamentally at the core there was simply no workable conceptual process, no principles of design. Thus 3.5 failed as well. 4e was really invented because the designers at WotC THREW UP THEIR HANDS, plainly seeing that what they had was unfixable and was a terrible design for a game!

Now, what all this shows is that what works for game designers and what works for people just muddling through playing a game are a lot different. Still, in the case of skills people really were never getting their money's worth out of that in anything except 4e, where they have a design purpose and serve it fairly well. 5e is a bit in the middle, clearly Mike understood the problem, but somehow he couldn't bring himself to just improve the 4e approach (IE make a better SC-like system and keep the short skill list). So, now we have a lot of bad choices, but at least the list is fairly bounded. Skills are still kind of a 5th wheel without being tied to core resolution process, but at least they serve the 'RP signifier' purpose and some of them are pretty useful (IE the perception type skills and similar, and the physical skills basically do their job, the social ones are borked of course, but so it goes...).

My point is, there's no point in discussing what D&D designers intended with skills, there WAS NO INTENT, except in 4e.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I would hope that any RPG designer only pays as much heed to any mechanic as s/he feels s/he has to!

My point was that the designers clearly didn't think that "in-character talk at the table would suffice" (to quote your earlier post once again) - because they included a very important mechanic, linked to the CHA stat, which determines via that modified roll how the GM is to frame the encounter between PCs and NPCs/monsters. As @AbdulAlhazred said, this is where a whole lot of classic D&D hijinks start from. You don't have to have a MU cast Charm Person or Sleep in order to avoid having to fight everything encountered.

The point of social mechanics as I see it, and as I hope my actual play example illustrates, is not to "skip to the roll". It's to allow for the determination of outcomes other than via dictation.

If the mechanics are any good, they will need the player to establish what the fiction and intent is that feeds into the resolution. That can be done via 1st person play or 3rd person narration of one's PC - what matters is that we know what (eg) von Jerrel is hoping to achieve - eg to have Lady Askol not hold it against him that she came on board a jumping vessel without her aide.

The problem with 3E's Diplomacy system as I have heard it described (I have almost no experience with it) are:

(1) It is weak on calling for intent, and is focused more on reframing the starting-point of the situation (eg from Hostile to Friendly) rather than on generating some response by the NPC to the PC's action (like Lady Askol's outrage being assuaged);

(2) It's maths are broken.

Solid maths is important in any system. AW has it baked in. Classic Traveller is not quite as tight as AW, but seems mostly to work.

I think the 3e Diplomacy system is at least partly harking back to the classic D&D reaction subsystem. It COULD work as a version of that, although it doesn't seem like the PROCESS to use it as such was developed. That is, in 1e AD&D the reaction system is codified right into the encounter resolution process as a distinct step. The option 'parley' is specifically called out and flagged as a thing that players should consider, and if they opt for it they do so at a specific point in the initial phases of an encounter. 3.x doesn't call any of this out, so it is at best nascent.

Classic D&D's reaction system worked, because it wasn't really a skill system, it was more of a 'world generation' system. There were no such things as 'reaction checks'. There was no point where the player called for a reaction role. At best they could ask for 'parley', or there were a few other specific points where it just got invoked (it was a factor in loyalty/morale, and also in hiring NPCs). Its effect was very clear, it generated a stance which the NPC involved would take. Everything from there was pure RP. The DM was expected to have some fictional explanation for whatever the reaction was. Sometimes DMs pre-rolled the check, or set a value for it, so it would be coherent with their existing setting design. That was acceptable too (well, who was going to argue... lol).

 

[hawkeyefan]

Ridiculous. Why would they ever act like adults? They are roleplaying adults in-character, imagining what it would be like to be fully self-actualized adults who can handle social issues responsibly like others do every day outside of gaming.

I mean, I'm not gonna claim that my game doesn't occasionally have a bit of drama at the table, but I'm not gonna blame the rules for that. And any such instances are always best worked out by having a conversation.

I find the concept of Character Agency in this scheme to be rather gerrymandered. And in practice a constraint that is often violated - see the discussions upthread about Gather Information, Foraging/Survival, and the like - which seem to bestow Setting Authority but rarely seem to cause much controversy (because no one feels this is very high stakes and it is "logical" that the locals should be gossiping or that there should be berries to find in the foreset; cf the different response to the setting element being the unique tower of a unique wizard).

I think you've hit on it about the logical bit. It's also likely deemed okay because it builds on something already established by the GM, and still gets filtered through the GM's judgment; I don't know if a GM in such a game would not consider it beyond their ability to render a successful roll to forage effectively a failure by evoking the notes. So it might play out like this:

Player: Ranger is going to forage for food so that we don't starve out here.
GM: Okay, go ahead and roll your Wilderness skill.
Player: Wow, I rolled a 27!
GM: Very nice! You're able to determine with certainty that there is nothing to forage in this area. The flora is all poisonous, so you know not to eat that! And there is an absence of wildlife that is eerily unsettling.
Player: But I rolled a 27!?!
GM: Yeah, but there is nothing here to find; it says so in my description of the Desolate Plains. I mean....they're desolate! You were able to determine that the flora would be dangerous, so at least you don't poison yourselves.

Or something similar. Such an action still gets filtered by the GM and his notes or the module or whatever. And although some folks would say "well that's not how the GM should handle it" there are others who would say "well of course....it's the Desolate Plains, and it was determined ahead of time there was nothing safe to eat there."

And I think that a big part of the problem is that huge variance between results, both of which could be seen as supported by the rules.

Part of this, I think, hinges upon how Actions are viewed. I imagine that the default assumption when a character attempts an Action roll of some kind.....like a Forage check in this example.....most or many folks view the success/fail result to be a result of the character's performance, rather than a property of the fictional world. So if Ranger fails his roll, he has failed to find food. Which seems pretty absurd, except perhaps in the most extreme locations.

Other folks would see such a failed result and decide that it indicates there is no food to be found. So it's not so much that the Ranger failed at the most basic functions of his class, but rather that there wasn't a way for him to succeed in the fiction. This is more about the Action roll helping to shape the fictional world rather than just the character. And in many cases, I think this is preferable; I know I'd rather think of it as food is impossible to find than that my Ranger is inept.

That distinction can play a big part in this kind of thing, too, which I think can go unnoticed.

I'm also curious where the GM taking suggestions (either formally like item wish lists in 4e D&D, or informally) fits in. That seems like Setting and/or Situation Authority (depending on the content) but is not uncommon, at least in its informal modes, in ostensibly Character Agency-based play.

Based on @Manbearcat 's descriptions of the categories, this would seem to fall into Setting Authority.

But it's the same thing here as I just described above.....it's probably fine because the GM can deny it out of hand. It's a request made by the player, but ultimately it's up to the GM to put the request into play.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I mean, I'm not gonna claim that my game doesn't occasionally have a bit of drama at the table, but I'm not gonna blame the rules for that. And any such instances are always best worked out by having a conversation.

I don't really disagree with you, but I'll just note this hobby (and the world in general) is full of people who are poor at having a conversation about things for any number of reasons (it became clear to me a number of years ago that 90% of game problems came back to that, and if that was easy for everyone they wouldn't come up in the first place). A set of rules isn't going to fix that, but I'm willing to say they can make the problem better or worse (which doesn't mean I agree with any particular rule doing so automatically).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't really disagree with you, but I'll just note this hobby (and the world in general) is full of people who are poor at having a conversation about things for any number of reasons (it became clear to me a number of years ago that 90% of game problems came back to that, and if that was easy for everyone they wouldn't come up in the first place). A set of rules isn't going to fix that, but I'm willing to say they can make the problem better or worse (which doesn't mean I agree with any particular rule doing so automatically).

Oh, but they DO! That is one of the great benefits of a set of rules. 6 socially inept geeks can sit down together around a table and simply follow a set of rules, process, and adhere to some principles, and things can go smoothly. If I run a PbtA game, or a PACE game (sort of a diceless Maelstrom basically) then it ALWAYS goes pretty well. I know what to do. Everyone is on the same page, and the process is coherent.

I mean, D&D is not some sort of disaster either, it has a bunch of rough edges, but it gives you a basic structure to work with. Now, the WW 'Storyteller' stuff, or 2e played 'as written' runs into bigger problems, but most any RPG will get you most of the way there.

Trying to do unstructured play with the same geeks? They better get along well, else probably things will be sub-optimal. Mostly they just won't know exactly what to do...

 

[hawkeyefan]

I don't really disagree with you, but I'll just note this hobby (and the world in general) is full of people who are poor at having a conversation about things for any number of reasons (it became clear to me a number of years ago that 90% of game problems came back to that, and if that was easy for everyone they wouldn't come up in the first place). A set of rules isn't going to fix that, but I'm willing to say they can make the problem better or worse (which doesn't mean I agree with any particular rule doing so automatically).

I wouldn't disagree with any of that. It can be hard to have an open conversation for a number of possible reasons.

But that doesn't mean that's not the best way to resolve the issue.

And although rules can indeed cause some issues to come up, or can exacerbate ones that may already exist, for the most part I'd say that rules do the opposite. They set the common ground that all participants should understand going in.

If a rule is causing an issue, sure, the group should consider changing it to make their experience better. I think that makes sense. But I don't think that means the rule shouldn't exist!

Edited to Add: And it seems that I was largely ninja'd by @AbdulAlhazred !

 

[Thomas Shey]

Oh, but they DO! That is one of the great benefits of a set of rules. 6 socially inept geeks can sit down together around a table and simply follow a set of rules, process, and adhere to some principles, and things can go smoothly. If I run a PbtA game, or a PACE game (sort of a diceless Maelstrom basically) then it ALWAYS goes pretty well. I know what to do. Everyone is on the same page, and the process is coherent.

I'd suggest if you think that, you've been unusually fortunate in your set of encountered players. The rules are only a corner of the social problems that can crop up in a gaming group, and can only address that corner (and even then you have to deal with everyone agreeing what the rules say, agreeing what they're saying is a good idea, and more).

 

[Thomas Shey]

I wouldn't disagree with any of that. It can be hard to have an open conversation for a number of possible reasons.

But that doesn't mean that's not the best way to resolve the issue.

Absolutely. But sometimes its also functionally impossible, and the attempt to do so actually exacerbates the extent problems.

And although rules can indeed cause some issues to come up, or can exacerbate ones that may already exist, for the most part I'd say that rules do the opposite. They set the common ground that all participants should understand going in.

If you're reading me as saying "Rules Don't Matter", I'm communicating poorly. As far as I'm concerned they absolutely do. I just think some things within the gaming contract are outside their reach.