A Question Of Agency?

[nevin]

The argument was that spellcasting in D&D becomes a problem that requires special preparation to counter, or else it starts to overwrite the game. You disagree, and then list all the ways you can specially prepare to avoid spellcasting being a problem that overwrites the game.

You see this, right? It's not a matter of "oh, I can deal with that," it's a question of what it is you have to deal with and why.

it doesn't overwrite the game. It's part of the game. The higher the level the more stuff available to deal with and the more stuff available for DM to use. Of course it gets harder because you have more things to keep in your head or to plan for. That's true if you take mages out of the game. If my high level rogue player is meddling in trade between 3 kingdoms with his current guild he's running then I have to deal with all the players in three kingdoms, decide who they are what their resources are and how they act.

I've played in games with DM's who love rogues so much that the rogue becomes the guy that makes everyone feel useless because they always know everything and nothing can happen without them. Anytime you as the DM let any player take that spot in the game you have failed to utilize your resources properly. I'm just disagreeing that it overwrites the game. I'm saying if it overwrites the game it's because the DM isn't utilizing all the tools properly. Mages are only disruptive if they always know what they are going to do and who they are going to fight. If they don't know what they are going to fight and you are mixing up things properly at least 50% of thier spells will be useless to them. there is no other class that I can so effectively screw by throwing a curve ball at them. I can turn 50% of any mages resources into useless anoying choices just by mixing up the monsters I throw at them.

 

[FrogReaver]

Sigh. Okay. I mean, if the topic of conversation was about what the cult thinks and what they do, it would appear that the convert might have more information.

In some sense he has more information, but he likely is so colored by the bias of being a convert that you really have to take what he says with a grain of salt.

If the topic of conversation was about whether or not you liked or wanted to be a cultist, then, sure, it's not relevant.

Not even then. There's that whole, you have to take what he says with a grain of salt problem.

Are we talking about how Blades in the Dark works, or are we talking about whether or not you like it?

Both sides are talking about both things simultaneously.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I think it'd be more like a D&D player getting mad because he didn't kill a monster with enough panache and now the building is on fire. Which might work if it's set up well enough, but that kinda requires prep ...

Two things on this.

First, the comparison is about resisting the fundamental means of momentum in the game. Mounting consequences is to Blades what room/level exploration is to D&D. Yes, I know you don't run dungeoncrawly type games, but gimme at least a little leeway with my metaphor. I think it would still apply however you ran the game; if you're relying on the fiction to shape the coming events, then what if a player balked at some new element you introduced, that's the kind of resistance I'm talking about. It's about not engaging with the game the way its meant to function. I mostly used the map and key example to avoid making any assumptions about your game and how it runs.

So, a player who balks at a consequence coming up in Blades is the same as a player balking at another room or another level of the dungeon in classic style D&D.

Second, to take your example, I think that would work quite well with a little bit of modification. Let's say a PC Scoundrel is skirmishing with some gang member in a manor house. There are other gang members nearby who are a threat, and the rest of his crew is around, too. So the PC attempts a Skirmish to stab the guy and gets a 4, Success with Consequence. He stabs the guy, but as he falls dead he stumbles back and hits a lantern that smashes on the floor and lights the nearby curtains. Now, the house doesn't just become a raging inferno, but there's a consequence that doesn't negate his success, but introduces a new element that needs to be dealt with. As I said, this isn't a raging inferno yet....but it probably needs to be dealt with before it gets worse, or, if the PCs are perfectly happy with the place burning down, then it puts a clock in place for them to do what they're there to do and the GTFO.

I mean, this scene seems straight out of genre fiction of all kinds.

I DMed a party through a dungeon-esque series of sessions without drawing a real map--just stuff for when fights arose.

Yeah, I know Blades needs the Consequences to keep things moving--that's why the odds are weighted the way they are. I just don't think that removing them from the GM's control puts them in the players'.

Removing the odds from the GM's control, do you mean? I'm not quite sure I'm following.

I think that removing GM ability to simply overrule anything, and to specifically constrain how they can frame scenes and so on, is a big part of player agency, no? The more authority that the GM has in this arena, the less the players have, right? Yes, there are still other factors at play, dice result being the big one, but I think that's what enables the agency. The math is all transparent to the player. They understand the odds and likely the consequences (or their severity, at least) and then can make an informed decision to proceed or not.

I think that agency largely has to belong to either the GM or the players, such that reducing it for one increases it for the other.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I can prepare for any mage with, rogues, or clerics, or even smart fighters. Can they always take the mage if he gets to prepare first. Of course not that's the mages strength. When they know what thier facing, and they get to prepare they are at the top of thier game. But in high level games if your players always know what's coming you've messed up. Memorizing spells and then being attacked by something you didn't expect is all it takes to turn a mage form near god to nervous wreck hoping to survive the battle.

Yeah, I'm not lamenting not being able to deal with a wizard character. As you've pointed out, the GM has essentially unlimited resources to throw at him. I get that I can send a terror of terrasques at them (yes, multiple tarrasques are known as a terror....it's canon) or even deities and the like.

My problem is that this all kind of disrupts the game in some way. Either the other players are overshadowed, or I'm subverting all the accomplishments and choices that the player has made for his character.....and so on.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I knew that a poster called @hawkeyefan would understand the issues with having people with reality bending powers and mundanes in the same party!

 

[Ovinomancer]

It seems as though you handled the consequence well. As I said, given foreshadowing or other narrative placement, it could work--even in D&D.

While what a given Consequence is, is under the GM's control (subject to the constraints you mention), the timing of when a Consequence happens seems to be a good deal less so. That seems to be between the players and the dice. I mean, a GM might (I think reasonably?) have several Consequences in mind at a given time and pick what seems best when the dice allow it.

The only control over timing the GM has is the authority to call for a check, within constraints. The generates the possibility of a consequence. As for having some on stock, sure, you could, but they really need to be generic because the game will rapidly outpace your planning, possibly on the first check. I've found it far my useful to remind myself of the kinds of consequence I can deliver rather than any specifics: harm, lost opportunity, less effect, worse position, equipment, etc.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I knew that a poster called @hawkeyefan would understand the issues with having people with reality bending powers and mundanes in the same party!

You've missed it, it's not the presence of reality bending powers, it's a system that doesn't handle that well without effort and an imbalance of distribution that's the issue. Frex, it's not really an issue if everyone's a high level mage and the GM takes a reaction stance to play.

 

[prabe]

Two things on this.

First, the comparison is about resisting the fundamental means of momentum in the game. Mounting consequences is to Blades what room/level exploration is to D&D. Yes, I know you don't run dungeoncrawly type games, but gimme at least a little leeway with my metaphor. I think it would still apply however you ran the game; if you're relying on the fiction to shape the coming events, then what if a player balked at some new element you introduced, that's the kind of resistance I'm talking about. It's about not engaging with the game the way its meant to function. I mostly used the map and key example to avoid making any assumptions about your game and how it runs.

Yeah. I get the metaphor--honest, and sorry. I was as much tweaking myself for putting a party into a dungeon as anything else (similar to how I think ratiocination-type mystery is not a genre that works in TRPGs, and I ad-libbed myself into needing to run one). I just think Consequences drive the game in a different way than how prep (or a map) does. I suppose it's plausible that my dislike for dungeoncrawls in D&D connects to my dislike for Consequences in Blades (I wanna play the game different?).

Second, to take your example, I think that would work quite well with a little bit of modification. Let's say a PC Scoundrel is skirmishing with some gang member in a manor house. There are other gang members nearby who are a threat, and the rest of his crew is around, too. So the PC attempts a Skirmish to stab the guy and gets a 4, Success with Consequence. He stabs the guy, but as he falls dead he stumbles back and hits a lantern that smashes on the floor and lights the nearby curtains. Now, the house doesn't just become a raging inferno, but there's a consequence that doesn't negate his success, but introduces a new element that needs to be dealt with. As I said, this isn't a raging inferno yet....but it probably needs to be dealt with before it gets worse, or, if the PCs are perfectly happy with the place burning down, then it puts a clock in place for them to do what they're there to do and the GTFO.

I mean, this scene seems straight out of genre fiction of all kinds.

Oh, it would absolutely work. It'd probably be easier to make work in Blades, because that sort of thing is perfect for a Consequence. In D&D you'd need some sort of environmental thing going on and you'd need some sort of clock the players could see and ... bleah.

Removing the odds from the GM's control, do you mean? I'm not quite sure I'm following.

I think that removing GM ability to simply overrule anything, and to specifically constrain how they can frame scenes and so on, is a big part of player agency, no? The more authority that the GM has in this arena, the less the players have, right? Yes, there are still other factors at play, dice result being the big one, but I think that's what enables the agency. The math is all transparent to the player. They understand the odds and likely the consequences (or their severity, at least) and then can make an informed decision to proceed or not.

I think that moving control of event-timing from the GM to the dice removes some I think that agency largely has to belong to either the GM or the players, such that reducing it for one increases it for the other.

I think that removing event-timing from the GM's control to the dice is removing some amount of agency from the table overall. I don't see that the players gain as much control as the GM loses, so the agency ... vanishes?

I mean, any game has a certain amount of agency, I think, and what agency a game has is distributed differently from game to game. I don't think it's necessarily true that removing agency from one person at the table automatically means other people at the table get it. This is a thought I've been turning over in my head the past day or two, and I don't think it's fully-formed. Maybe it needs more time, maybe it needs another thinker.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You've missed it, it's not the presence of reality bending powers, it's a system that doesn't handle that well without effort and an imbalance of distribution that's the issue. Frex, it's not really an issue if everyone's a high level mage and the GM takes a reaction stance to play.

If everyone is a high level mage then it is a not a party which mixes mundanes and people with reality bending powers... And yes, the reality bending powers are not inherently an issue. I explained this in my non-joke post earlier.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yeah. I get the metaphor--honest, and sorry. I was as much tweaking myself for putting a party into a dungeon as anything else (similar to how I think ratiocination-type mystery is not a genre that works in TRPGs, and I ad-libbed myself into needing to run one). I just think Consequences drive the game in a different way than how prep (or a map) does. I suppose it's plausible that my dislike for dungeoncrawls in D&D connects to my dislike for Consequences in Blades (I wanna play the game different?).

Oh, it would absolutely work. It'd probably be easier to make work in Blades, because that sort of thing is perfect for a Consequence. In D&D you'd need some sort of environmental thing going on and you'd need some sort of clock the players could see and ... bleah.


I think that removing event-timing from the GM's control to the dice is removing some amount of agency from the table overall. I don't see that the players gain as much control as the GM loses, so the agency ... vanishes?

I mean, any game has a certain amount of agency, I think, and what agency a game has is distributed differently from game to game. I don't think it's necessarily true that removing agency from one person at the table automatically means other people at the table get it. This is a thought I've been turning over in my head the past day or two, and I don't think it's fully-formed. Maybe it needs more time, maybe it needs another thinker.

Do players have event timing in D&D? I'd say absolutely not -- this is solely the realm of the GM. So, yes, I agree, there is a loss of agency when you move that to a place of less control -- the GM has less agency. Perhaps overall agency, GM+players, decreases -- I'm hard pressed to be able to make that argument either way -- it's close, at least. But, the question in this thread is about player agency, and it's clear that this approach does enable player agency more, because while they don't have control over event timing, so to speak, they have a lot more input on exactly what and how that event will resolve and the GM cannot block or say no.

It, to me, is a very simple point. If the GM cannot say no, and is bound by the result, then the player has more agency than in a case where the GM can say no and is not bound. Clearly, though, the GM has less agency in the latter.