A Question Of Agency?

[FrogReaver]

This is not true. Non of this is arbitrary or GM discretion. There are conditions that trigger an Action Roll (1 and 3 below are both in play here) specifically and Goals, Actions, and Principles that guide the GM broadly.



Goals, Actions, and Principles in play in this excerpt:

Determining what is challenging can be viewed as a subjective call. A process that hinges on a subjective call is typically said to be the result of GM discretion.

 

[FrogReaver]

My second issue is that I am failing to see how more agency in this example is being exerted than in a D&D session. The player is looking for something... the DM decided if it was or wasn't there, a roll to figure out if it was magical was made and failure = trap sprung. PC and party attacked. I'm trying to see where the extra agency came in here... where the player shaped the story.

If I recall the player introduced the painting and his action with the painting in the first place. Essentially the player had the choice to make the story become about the player and the painting (though there's still a bit of a question over whether that's actually a meaningful enough choice to be called agency.) But the rest of the interaction, I'm with you that I don't really see any agency.

 

[FrogReaver]

Not exactly. The player said he wanted to check the painting, and the player decided to use Attune to do so. As @Manbearcat explained, that’s an inherently dangerous thing to do. So the player would know what kind of possible consequences they’d be facing.

Then, the GM determines Position and Effect, with the Position indicating the severity if any possible consequences. So if it was Controlled, it would be minimal risk, Risky would be a standard level of risk, and Desperate would indicate extreme risk.

Then the player decides to proceed or not, with all that in mind. They can decide “this is way too dangerous” and back off, or they can follow through.

How is that not informed?

I think we can agree that the player didn't know the exact consequence of his action ahead of time. He may have knew it was dangerous and even had some idea of how severe the consequences would be of failure. But if that's enough to make an informed decision then it further reinforces the criticism that the actual resulting fiction doesn't matter. It's essentially window dressing as all that one needs to know about danger is the potential severity of the consequences.

While I'm sure it would be frowned upon, from what I am hearing one could play blades of the dark without ever making up a fictional story simply by invoking the mechanics in mechanical terms.

Player: "I'm going to do a desperate action"
DM: "Your consequence will be severe"
Player: "I rolled failure"
DM: "X happens, from now on Y is the effect"

I'm sure that's a rather simplified version as I'm sure there's some extra mechanics in there I'm not aware of - but it shouldn't be hard to step through the actual mechanics and end up in a similar but state.

I don't believe this would be possible with 5e D&D play as the DM must use the fictional positioning to determine when a roll is required in the first place. Though I'm open to criticisms of that opinion.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That being the core play loop of blades in the dark doesn't remove the criticism. Nor does focusing on who initiated the situation. There's no doubt there's a choice involved and the choice was the players - what challenging thing will I do? But choice alone is something I think we all agree is not enough to provide agency. It must be meaningful choice. At the end of the day you are speaking about the challenging thing that was chosen as if that choice didn't actually matter. Maybe there's some way which it does - in which case I would love to hear that.

It is a meaningful choice, because the player determines not just the action, but the success result of the action. They also get to choose how that action is performed. This step is different form D&D where the GM determines what the check is. Here, the player does. The GM then sets the risk and effect. Effect is a measure of how much towards the player's intent this action will go -- usually you have standard effect, but you can have lesser effect, and great effect. Rarely you can have no effect (but the player has resources to improve this). These are constrained by the nature of the current fiction and the action you've declared -- the GM is not free to do whatever, and it's obvious if there's Force being used here. Then the player can choose to bring additional resources to bear to alter the dice rolled, the position and effect, and so forth, usually by paying a cost or accepting more risk (you can improve effect by a step by worsening position by a step). This entire loop is entirely player driven, and centered on what the player finds important about the scene or score. The GM only has authorities to choose to call for a check, then set position and effect (subject to player modifications using the abovementioned resources), and any failure results or complications. Everything else is on the player.

This looks nothing like D&D play -- I run both, and can absolutely say this. @hawkeyefan runs both, and he can chime in as well.

Determining what is challenging can be viewed as a subjective call. A process that hinges on a subjective call is typically said to be the result of GM discretion.

Of course it's not entirely objective, but that doesn't mean it's arbitrary, either. What's challenging is what the game is about -- it's usually blindingly obvious when you need a check, and good guidance is that if you're not sure, let it ride until you are. The goal of the GM is to bring honest adversity to the PC's lives, and it's not hard to see when to do this. If you're coming from a D&D background, though, it appears hard because you're still evaluating according to the wrong paradigms -- the kinds of things that happen in a Blades game don't look like normal D&D -- there's usually not choices about which way to go at T-intersections, for instance, because that's not something that the players are putting at risk. That kind of thing is a function of GM driven games.

If I recall the player introduced the painting and his action with the painting in the first place. Essentially the player had the choice to make the story become about the player and the painting (though there's still a bit of a question over whether that's actually a meaningful enough choice to be called agency.) But the rest of the interaction, I'm with you that I don't really see any agency.

Nope. I mean, it's right there, three times, you could look. The painting was introduced by the GM as color. The player did make it important, though. If you're thinking that having the ability to make a thing important to the play of the game isn't agency, though, then I have no idea what definition of agency you're operating under -- it clearly doesn't value making a choice that is meaningful because choosing what's important to play is straight down the middle of that.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think we can agree that the player didn't know the exact consequence of his action ahead of time. He may have knew it was dangerous and even had some idea of how severe the consequences would be of failure. But if that's enough to make an informed decision then it further reinforces the criticism that the actual resulting fiction doesn't matter. It's essentially window dressing as all that one needs to know about danger is the potential severity of the consequences.

While I'm sure it would be frowned upon, from what I am hearing one could play blades of the dark without ever making up a fictional story simply by invoking the mechanics in mechanical terms.

Player: "I'm going to do a desperate action"
DM: "Your consequence will be severe"
Player: "I rolled failure"
DM: "X happens, from now on Y is the effect"

I'm sure that's a rather simplified version as I'm sure there's some extra mechanics in there I'm not aware of - but it shouldn't be hard to step through the actual mechanics and end up in a similar but state.

I don't believe this would be possible with 5e D&D play as the DM must use the fictional positioning to determine when a roll is required in the first place.

It's hard, but I've decided to read this in the best light possible -- you are still genuinely confused as to how play operates in Blades and think that the GM just calls for rolls whenever and that the consequences of that roll are arbitrary. This is entirely wrong. In Blades, the characters are doing dangerous and risky things as a norm. The things they try are obviously not run of the mill, so the fictional positioning is absolutely necessary when calling for a check. In my example of play that you're referring to (and you either have me on ignore or you're intentionally sub-posting), the check was called for because the player indicated this was that kind of thing -- it was a risky action for a goal that was important to the character. It followed the established fiction and the intent of the action -- nothing was arbitrary here. And, so it goes with play.

As for your thumbnail -- you cannot actually boil down play in Blades to this because every check is dependent on the nature of the fiction. Perhaps this applies to some set of possible actions and resolutions, but this elides every bit of detail that makes the game about the players. The player declares an action, yes, but unless the fiction presents a reason for this to be dangerous, there's not a roll. Further, the player doesn't declare the action to be desperate at all -- that's up to the GM reading the fiction and the actions intent. Instead, the player declares an action to achieve an intent. Going back to the jumping rogue example from earlier in the thread, just jumping the alley isn't that interesting and would probably not engage a roll -- it's more color if you're just jumping over an alley, so do just narrate it. Now, if your being pursued by guards and you intent to leap the alleyway to cause the guards to break off, well, then, now there's some interest -- some stakes. Let's roll! And the position and effect will be set by the fiction. The interesting thing here is that these are set according to a clean read of the fiction without consideration for PC abilities or conditions. The GM's not responsible for remembering that the rogue has a previously twisted ankle, say, and so doesn't consider this when setting P and E. And setting P and E is up for challenge -- if a player doesn't think that the P and E reflect the situation, they are encouraged to speak up! Things must adhere to the fiction that is established in play. Once this is done, the player can use their resources to modify things and improve the outcomes/chances. They also are responsible for adding anything that might be a problem, like that previously twisted ankle that would reduce effect or cost a die depending on the level of harm. THEN we roll. And, if the outcome is a failure, and the GM narrates outcome according to the position agreed to, then the player still has the option to resist that result and get a better one -- if they can afford the Stress.

So, no, except as a particularly bad caricature of a small subset of possible play loops in Blades (and I mean bad as in if you squint it might look like something), your understanding isn't complete.

 

[FrogReaver]

It is a meaningful choice, because the player determines not just the action, but the success result of the action.

There's two things going on there. We can talk about agency in relation to each. The player determining the action and the player determining the success result of the action. Determining the success result of the action could result in agency while determining the action results in no agency. It's all about where meaningful choice exists.

They also get to choose how that action is performed.

I'm going out on a limb here and assuming that means they effectively choose which ability score they are using. If so that's another thing the player has agency over as I would think which ability score you use is meaningful.

This step is different form D&D where the GM determines what the check is. Here, the player does. The GM then sets the risk and effect.

What does the GM base the risk and effect on?

Effect is a measure of how much towards the player's intent this action will go -- usually you have standard effect, but you can have lesser effect, and great effect. Rarely you can have no effect (but the player has resources to improve this). These are constrained by the nature of the current fiction and the action you've declared -- the GM is not free to do whatever, and it's obvious if there's Force being used here. Then the player can choose to bring additional resources to bear to alter the dice rolled, the position and effect, and so forth, usually by paying a cost or accepting more risk (you can improve effect by a step by worsening position by a step). This entire loop is entirely player driven, and centered on what the player finds important about the scene or score. The GM only has authorities to choose to call for a check, then set position and effect (subject to player modifications using the abovementioned resources), and any failure results or complications. Everything else is on the player.

How is the player's choice of what they find important in the scene meaningful?

This looks nothing like D&D play -- I run both, and can absolutely say this. @hawkeyefan runs both, and he can chime in as well.

If you are saying it looks much different in play, I totally agree. If you are saying there's never any parallels you can draw between the 2 in relation to agency, I think that's a step too far.

Of course it's not entirely objective, but that doesn't mean it's arbitrary, either. What's challenging is what the game is about -- it's usually blindingly obvious when you need a check, and good guidance is that if you're not sure, let it ride until you are. The goal of the GM is to bring honest adversity to the PC's lives, and it's not hard to see when to do this. If you're coming from a D&D background, though, it appears hard because you're still evaluating according to the wrong paradigms -- the kinds of things that happen in a Blades game don't look like normal D&D -- there's usually not choices about which way to go at T-intersections, for instance, because that's not something that the players are putting at risk. That kind of thing is a function of GM driven games.

Agreed

Nope. I mean, it's right there, three times, you could look. The painting was introduced by the GM as color.

Okay.

The player did make it important, though. If you're thinking that having the ability to make a thing important to the play of the game isn't agency, though, then I have no idea what definition of agency you're operating under -- it clearly doesn't value making a choice that is meaningful because choosing what's important to play is straight down the middle of that.

Depends on if it's actually just window dressing or something more. I think you said earlier that mechanical decisions in the game are driven by the fictional position. If that's the case I certainly agree an ability to have control over what elements are important in the fiction is a type of agency. I'm just not so sure it's agency if the fictional elements were to have no bearing on anything else.

 

[prabe]

@FrogReaver

Advice that you're perfectly free to ignore.

There is an SRD for Blades in the Dark, and it's free to read. IIRC, it's a web interface so you can't download it, but you can read it. I think if you really want to understand the game that's going to be a necessary step.

Heck, if you're interested, you can find Apocalypse World (I think it's an earlier edition) free online, as well, and there's a starter book for Burning Wheel that is also free, to pick games that get talked about in these sort of threads.

I don't particularly care for Blades or AW, but those opinions genuinely arose after reading the games. Conversations like the one you're having with @Ovinomancer (who is frankly being waay more patient than I would probably be) would, I think, go a lot more easily for all concerned if you've at least seen the rules.

 

[Ovinomancer]

There's two things going on there. We can talk about agency in relation to each. The player determining the action and the player determining the success result of the action. Determining the success result of the action could result in agency while determining the action results in no agency. It's all about where meaningful choice exists.

This is, again, confused because it shows you don't know how the game works. The player choosing the action means they can choose how the consequences of the action are structured and also modify the chance of success. If you decide, for instance, to pilfer the painting by just ripping it from the wall, that's probably a Wreck action, and the consequences are going to be related to that -- causing enough noise to alert nearby guards, destroying the item you're trying to recover, etc. A Wreck action will not cause the painting to become haunter -- the choice to make the check about Attuning did that. So, as you should now see, the choice of action used has lots of impact in determining both how the failure consequences will follow and how many dice you might be rolling to start with.

I'm going out on a limb here and assuming that means they effectively choose which ability score they are using. If so that's another thing the player has agency over as I would think which ability score you use is meaningful.

Close enough.

What does the GM base the risk and effect on?

The current fiction and the action/intent stated. These default to Risky/Standard and there needs to be a reason to move them. Those reasons are entirely within the fiction of the moment and the action chosen.

How is the player's choice of what they find important in the scene meaningful?

I'm legit flummoxed, here, and I think it's because you're using some definition of meaningful that I'm not understanding. I mean, the word important is right there, are important things not meaningful, and, if so, what do you consider meaningful if important things aren't?

If you are saying it looks much different in play, I totally agree. If you are saying there's never any parallels you can draw between the 2 in relation to agency, I think that's a step too far.

There are comparisons, sure -- that's been a large focus of the thread. What you're doing isn't comparing, though, it's trying to say, by fiat, that this thing is like that thing, so no difference, when there is, in fact, a difference.

I run both, there are lots of parallels, just not in the way you're trying to assert, at least so far. You might get lucky, soon. Honestly, the paradigms of play -- where they focus, how they operate, what's important to them -- are different, so any parallel you draw is like to be flawed, at best.

Agreed


Okay.

Oh, right, I forgot that's not something you do. I believe you've told me, at least once, that it's my responsibility to repeat things to you rather than yours to go back and look yourself.

Depends on if it's actually just window dressing or something more. I think you said earlier that mechanical decisions in the game are driven by the fictional position. If that's the case I certainly agree an ability to have control over what elements are important in the fiction is a type of agency. I'm just not so sure it's agency if the fictional elements were to have no bearing on anything else.

Such a strange statement. Why would you think the fictional elements would have no bearing on anything else? Blades is the most elegantly and tightly connected game I've seen. Everything feeds every other part of the game. Scores feed into the faction game which feed into the next score. Scores feed into downtime which feeds entanglements which feeds the faction game which feeds the next score. If a thing is important, then, by definition, it's not independent of everything else. It's a thing of beauty.

However, unless you want to play the specific genre that Blades evokes, that beautiful design doesn't really help much. Precisely crafted things are not generally multi-purpose. This is, in fact, one of the strengths of D&D -- by being so loosely built it has a broader base of use.

 

[pemerton]

Who do you think controls outcome in a combat resolved according to the D&D combat rules as set out in AD&D (either edition), Moldvay Basic, 3E (either version), 4e, 5e?

In general - No one.

So how does combat get resolved then?

 

[aramis erak]

No more than anything else.

If my PC is in the tavern and the GM narrates the stew as mouldy and maggot-ridden, I can't narrate my character extolling the peasant virtues of this repast.

As @prabe and I already discussed, if my PC is in a tavern I can't also engage in free roleplay where I point out features of the beautiful night sky to another PC.

Etc.

Actually, one usually CAN describe the outside sky... you just need to take a seat by the window if you want the other party to be seeing it as you describe it. But even the window isn't needed. Many a drunkard waxes on about things not present in the real world... and not a few sober ones. Just last monday, I was describing the Aurora Borealis as seen in Fairbanks to a bloke from New Zealand, while in a wal-mart.

As for the stew, how good's the character's deception score? And how hungry is the character? Is the character previously established as picky or an iron stomach type? those definitions are more important that the singular fact that it's molding... on the other hand, that mold is a good foreshadow warning of the food being essentially poisoned.