A Question Of Agency?

[Ovinomancer]

The probabilities look to me as though this path is all-but-certain, which is probably part of why it feels to me as though it doesn't really have any agency: The characters can't really accomplish anything.

It's really not. The players have a lot of weight they can throw at both rolls and the consequences to mitigate this. This is why I said it sometimes happens -- usually the PCs are robust enough to be able to overcome.

For example, the player picks the action, so if their not picking actions that have reasonable chances of success, they know it -- like the Hound in my example that has a 3 dice Hunt with some nice playbook perks, but 0 dice Attune. When he picked Attune as an action, he knew what he was in for. Further, you can Push by burning 2 Stress for an extra die, or accept a devil's bargain for one (essentially agree to a minor consequence for an extra die). You can get assistance from a teammate for an extra die, and this can stack with the extra die from Pushing or a Devil's Bargain (which don't stack), but this opens the assistant to the consequence. You can perform a setup action to improve the Effect -- either yourself or a teammate can do this. Given how the system works, just going from one die to two halves the chance for failure (50% to 25%). Three dice is a 12.5% chance of failure. If you get four dice, this is 6.25% -- or nearly the odds you'll roll a 1 on a d20. So, yeah, players have a lot of weight they can bring to the chances of success.

For improving effect, the can Push for this as well, or use the setup actions, or swap position for effect. There's lots of ways this can work out.

If they fail, they still have weight to throw -- they can Resist, which automatically succeeds and reduces or negates (for lesser consequences) the impact of the failure. They can burn equipment, often, to do similar things.

So, yeah, in practice, players have a lot of weight they can throw at things. It's when players try to do things they're not particularly good at that the fun really happens. For some reason, one I cannot explain, my players have all built characters that are bad at the sway/consort/command actions, but they keep on trying to use them! It's a running joke -- "How do we get out of this scrape -- sneak away, where we have good dice, or fight our way out where we have good dice? NO! Let's talk our way out, where we have terrible dice! I dearly love my players, though -- they entertain the hell out of me.

 

[Fenris-77]

Your sentence doesn't make any sense. It of course it perfectly possible that I am mistaken, but then you actually need to point out where an how.

I don't know about mistaken, but it's a weird example. I can't think of many games where you'd get to simply state this item is that item. It's certainly not the case with Blades. Czege is about adversity and resolution too, which isn't really part of your example. Where's the adversity and who authored it? Once that's part of the equation you can circle back to Czege.

 

[prabe]

So, yeah, in practice, players have a lot of weight they can throw at things. It's when players try to do things they're not particularly good at that the fun really happens. For some reason, one I cannot explain, my players have all built characters that are bad at the sway/consort/command actions, but they keep on trying to use them! It's a running joke -- "How do we get out of this scrape -- sneak away, where we have good dice, or fight our way out where we have good dice? NO! Let's talk our way out, where we have terrible dice! I dearly love my players, though -- they entertain the hell out of me.

Yeah. Players can be a source of amusement when they ... look at things from an angle radically different from the GM.

I think, though that my outlook on the inevitability of the death spiral is correlated to my outlook on partial success/partial failure. All it really takes to get the death spiral started is the right complication on an uncomplicated success--and those are all but inevitable.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You are absolutely correct that a D&D combat has loads of die rolling, which actually makes the RNG matter far less! Over the course of combat so many rolls are made that it evens out the odds. So the combat is won or lost by the tactical decisions the players make. That is agency.

You've just contradicted yourself -- if the RNG averages out (which is a false assumption on the prob and stats side for a single combat), then tactics don't really matter as much -- it's really just the average numbers that matter. Luckily, as I noted, your assumption about the averaging out isn't exactly correct, so tactics can make more of an impact. And, I fully agree, ability to deploy tactics in D&D is a mark of agency. The combat sub-system in D&D, with it's tightly codified rules and expectations, is a place that players get to wield more agency because the GM is strongly discouraged from just overriding those rules -- they're usually expected to abide by them.

Odd, then, that you're claiming more agency exists in a tightly codified mechanical ruleset when it comes to D&D, but saying that it does the opposite in other games? Very odd, indeed!

You think that RNG is an interesting obstacle. The player gets to dictate the first item they see to be an item they need for their 'quest'. Sure, they had bad luck, doesn't mean that the whole quest isn't a super low-agency affair. There are no information to be gained, no interesting decisions to be made. Just latch on the first thing you see and roll the die. Whoop de doo!

I've explained the entire process a few times, now, and if this is your take after that, then I can only assume that you're incapable of understanding or intentionally unwilling to do so. Given how often you've shifted the goalposts, though -- moving from RNGs, to Czege Principle violations, and now to claiming that being able to push your interests onto the fiction is a mark of low agency, I'm leaning towards the latter.

I mean, you've just said that the player being able to make their PC's goals relevant in the game is low-agency! What, praytell, is a mark of high agency if it doesn't involve the player making things they care about part of the game?!

The issue is that you think that getting to roll dice to see whether you get to narrate a bit of the story is agency and I think making (at least somewhat) informed tactical or dramatic decisions is agency. It's like in the Lancelot situation where I though that the player getting to make the dramatic decision was agency and you thought that the player getting to roll the dice to see what their character does was.

No, that's not it at all. I think that making my interests part of the game is agency. That I engage the game's mechanics is just a pathway, the important bit for agency is that I can make the game acknowledge what I am interested in. Contrast this to D&D. Similar situation, the player wants to see if this painting is worth something towards their PC's goal. The GM checks their notes and says, "nah." How is this somehow more agency than in Blades where the GM has to acknowledge this and then uses the system to resolve the question -- "is this painting worth something to the PC's goal?" I'm utterly baffled by your analysis, largely because of the double standard involved -- you try to pin down the Blades play and claim that having to roll dice removes agency, or the player being able to make the game about things they care about removes agency, but when you look back at your own play you do not apply these things -- you make different arguments that checks don't matter because they average out(!) and that you have agency when you get to playact your asking the GM for their favor in making what you care about part of the game(!). It's ridiculous the knots you're tying yourself up into -- arguing out of one set of standards on the for side, and a different set of standard on the against side. And, every time it's pointed out, it's either ignored or you trot out some new form of special pleading that says that doesn't count.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yeah. Players can be a source of amusement when they ... look at things from an angle radically different from the GM.

I think, though that my outlook on the inevitability of the death spiral is correlated to my outlook on partial success/partial failure. All it really takes to get the death spiral started is the right complication on an uncomplicated success--and those are all but inevitable.

If the guidelines of play are followed, this doesn't occur -- it really just propels the game forward at it's current pace. Think of it this way -- the way Blades works is that the GM presents an initial challenge. If the players just succeed or fail, then that fiction mostly just stops there -- they fail and it gets harder, but stays essentially the same until that challenge is overcome. The partial success, on the other hand, drives forward by both overcoming that challenge but now adding a new one that needs to be addressed. The idea is propelling the game, not locking it into a spiral state. When you get the 4-5, you succeed! That must be honored. But, the situation isn't all good.

And, here's where the GM's judgement really comes into play. The GM can introduce new problems (the "soft" move) to continue to drive the play, or, if it feels like this challenge has had enough time in play, level a consequence that doesn't add new problems (a harm, or equipment loss, or faction game consequence, etc.). Then the score can move to the next logical challenge (if not yet complete) or finish (if complete). Is there a lot of GM latitude here? Absolutely, never going to deny that the GM has latitude (the players have a lot, as well). This is what really makes or breaks a Blades GM -- paying attention to bringing honest adversity.

 

[prabe]

The idea is propelling the game, not locking it into a spiral state. When you get the 4-5, you succeed! That must be honored. But, the situation isn't all good.

Yeah. The situation is in some way worse than it was before you made the check ... As I said to @hawkeyefan I'm a "this glass is one-eighth empty" kinda guy.

And, here's where the GM's judgement really comes into play. The GM can introduce new problems (the "soft" move) to continue to drive the play, or, if it feels like this challenge has had enough time in play, level a consequence that doesn't add new problems (a harm, or equipment loss, or faction game consequence, etc.). Then the score can move to the next logical challenge (if not yet complete) or finish (if complete). Is there a lot of GM latitude here? Absolutely, never going to deny that the GM has latitude (the players have a lot, as well). This is what really makes or breaks a Blades GM -- paying attention to bringing honest adversity.

I think GM judgment and "paying attention to honest adversity" sit at the core of good GMing in any system. I think Blades (and probably PbtA stuff) shift much of that judgment to fiction-in-the-moment (from ... prep, probably). The ability to tell when things need to move on is also a Good Thing, no matter the game.

EDIT: I put a phrase together in a way that was awkward and ugly and I tried to fix it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yeah. The situation is in some way worse than it was before you made the check ... As I said to @hawkeyefan I'm a "this glass is one-eighth empty" kinda guy.

It's also a better than when you made the check. I get the negative is something hard to swallow for you -- that's fine -- but it does inhibit looking at how it's intended to work as a device to propel the game rather than just layer hurt on players.

I think GM judgment and "paying attention to honest adversity" sit at the core of good GMing in any system. I think Blades (and probably PbtA stuff) shift much of that judgment to fiction-in-the-moment (from ... prep, probably), and the ability to tell when things need to move on is also a Good Thing.

Yup, one would hope this is true.

 

[Manbearcat]

So, it has occurred to me that a DM in D&D (as usual, thinking 5E because it's the edition living in my brain) has a lot of agency over when things happen, but a lot less agency over what happens--most effects are predetermined, or at least defined in the rules; the DM is just deciding when they happen--while a GM in, say, Blades has effectively no agency over when anything happens--that's entirely up to the dice, so I think there's an argument no one has agency over it--but a lot of agency over what happens (so long as the table is willing to agree it follows from the fiction).

That's only quasi-related to your question, though.

As is this: A DM fudging a die roll because they want the story to go a specific place doesn't seem to be operating from a different motive from a GM in Blades who chooses an outcome because they want the story to go a specific place. Not that anyone has been impugning GM motives much, that I've seen.

If I were going to apply Force in a game of 5E, the obvious place would be the die rolls (or target numbers/DCs) hidden from the players. A less-obvious place might be in enemy/NPC decisions/tactics: a GM can shape things by playing the NPCs/enemies as more or less intelligent than they should be. Perhaps less obvious than that would be something like scenario design, where the PCs have limited options, information, and/or time. Perhaps less obvious than that would be stuff a GM can do with scene-framing, where like a good writer you can center attention on what you want (taking advantage of willing suspension of disbelief).

I've only read the SRD for Blades, but I don't remember seeing much in the way of mechanical constraints on the GM for framing scenes, or choosing outcomes. Those would be the places I would look.

So what you've brought up at the bottom of that is actually one of the historically big issues where Force is applied in D&D and it brings up a question that I want to post to the thread commenters (I will do that at the bottom).

D&D has a Spellcaster problem.

I'm wondering if the fault-line of the conversation cleaves exactly the same way as the ideological fault-line of the above statement. I already know several members thoughts on it and, interestingly, it does for those participants, so I wonder if its across the board.

If the play ethos, GMing Principles, capabilities of PCs, and the action resolution mechanics in Blades were ported over to D&D, it wouldn't have a Spellcaster problem. But it doesn't have this kind of architecture and it does have a Spellcaster problem.

How has D&D (outside of 4e and Moldvay Basic) historically resolved this "Spellcaster problem?"

Force in the exact same way you're potentially imputing to Blades above; at the framing level and at the outcome level. How and why does this manifest in (non 4e) D&D? As follows:

* GMs has mandate as lead storyteller, adventure writer, rules mediator, spotlight balancer, and "ensure everyone has a good time...er". Do what it takes to get "the job" done.

* The process for specific types of action resolution is entirely GM facing. However...spellcasting...is not. It has the unique privilege of being little packets of "fiction/gamestate fiat". "Fire and forget authorial control." Literally.

* How do you deal with this GM/Player Arms Race once Spellcaster power becomes proliferate enough that it can be routinely deployed and potent enough that it gets to routinely reframe or obviate content/conflicts? Spotlight balancing (which is one of your big directives in D&D GMing) becomes impossible because Spellcaster players co-opt play just by sincerely playing their class (which no one should be castigated for...everyone else gets to play their class to the hilt). Encounter intuitiveness on the GM's side of things gets thrown off because you may think you've built this interesting climactic fight and the Spellcaster just says "nope." Intrigue, exploration, journey all get short-circuited because the Spellcaster just says "nope." All that stuff in the first * becomes nigh impossible. What's a GM to do?!

* You unilaterally take it away. You frame a situation with intrinsic Spellcaster blocks or you leverage offscreen/backstory that you have exclusive access to (and often times "leverage" means impromptu make it up in order to execute a block). Antimagic Zones, Counterspells or NPC Wizards that are perfectly loaded out to counter PC Mages, Wild Magic Fields, Spellbook/component theft, Divination/recon, etc etc, etc.

* This ham-fisted stuff starts getting sniffed out from miles away in D&D and unless you're playing with passive, Participationist type players, its going to initially illicit eye-rolls > then passive-aggressiveness > then aggressiveness > then walk-out.

---

So a couple of questions (for everyone):

* Do you believe that (non 4e) D&D has a Spellcaster problem?

* If so, have you ever leveraged those blocks?

* Try to Steelman my argument against the idea that "framing" and "choosing outcomes" is where you may find Force in Blades GMing. If you're able, where/what in that group of stuff above puts it at odds with the paradigm of Blades? If you can't that is fine, I'll fill in the blanks later. But I think this paradigm above should be pretty instructive.

 

[prabe]

This is an interesting observation, and but the idea that effects are predetermined kind of elides a few things. First, most of these are predetermined by the GM themselves, in whatever design they've placed in their notes or whichever set of published materials they've decided to adopt without modification. The GM still has the agency over these outcomes, it's just displaced from the moment of play.

However, there is one area where things are very locked in -- spells. These are the refuge of agency in D&D, because the rules dictate that if you cast a spell, XYZ happens. This is the point and method whereby the players get the most say in the game. I find this interesting because there's a strong contingent of GMs that dislike the prevalence of magic ability in 5e, and I think that, while not entirely or even necessarily mostly, that this factors into it. Having lots of players that have spells means that they have a lot more agency over the situation, provided a spell addresses it.

Coming back to this for a moment (sorry).

I was very specifically thinking of spells. If I have a few oni wreaking havoc (which I'll totally grant is DM agency, because setting scenarios into motion is the DM's prerogative in D&D) and the PCs engage some of them in combat (because killing the oni is the way they've decided to solve the problem), I as DM have agency over when the oni cast Cone of Cold (and in which direction, and other tactical considerations) but I don't have any agency over what the spell does--and if the players look, they'll know exactly what it does, and I'm OK with that. I'm also not one of those DMs who complains about PCs having too much magic (not that you said I was, to be clear).

 

[prabe]

So a couple of questions (for everyone):

* Do you believe that (non 4e) D&D has a Spellcaster problem?

* If so, have you ever leveraged those blocks?

* Try to Steelman my argument against the idea that "framing" and "choosing outcomes" is where you may find Force in Blades GMing. If you're able, where/what in that group of stuff above puts it at odds with the paradigm of Blades? If you can't that is fine, I'll fill in the blanks later. But I think this paradigm above should be pretty instructive.

I don't think 5E has a spellcaster problem, no. I think there's a good argument that 3-dot-Pathfinder did (does).

I am running two 5E campaigns. One group is 13th level (maybe 14th--what does it say that I can't remember?), the other is 8th. I haven't used any of your "ham-fisted" counters to their spellcasters, yet--with the possible exception of a City Council building that was protected against scrying (which I thought was a reasonable precaution in a D&D world).

I will admit that having only read the SRD for Blades--never the whole book, and never having played it--I am ill-equipped to steelman your argument. I'm probably ill-equipped to do much more than strawman it, to be honest. (Also, I was saying where I'd look, not that I think it's inevitable or probable or anything else as an attack on the system.)