A Question Of Agency?

[prabe]

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.

I find that players in my D&D campaigns outpace my planning, if I do much more than lay down various situations and starting points. I can often guess what they'll go after, but rarely their methods.

 

[Ovinomancer]

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.

The "reality bending powers" you mention are just enforced agency -- the system says what will happen and overrules the GM, or, more to the point, if the GM overrules the system here, it's obvious. There's nothing special about it being flavored as magic.

And, again, there's no "reality" in a make-believe game.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I find that players in my D&D campaigns outpace my planning, if I do much more than lay down various situations and starting points. I can often guess what they'll go after, but rarely their methods.

Exactly. The difference really is that in D&D, you can shuffle your prep to new places and use it, thereby employing some Illusionism (again, I've said this isn't an automatic bad, that 5e essentially requires it in how it's structured). In Blades, doing this is against the rules of the game, and will be obvious that it's been done.

It's not a claim that one does it better. The use of Illusionism in D&D can absolutely lead to very entertaining play. If, however, you care about these things, then no amount of entertaining play will get rid of the bad taste, just like no amount of encouragement will overcome your bad taste for some of the mechanics under discussion. Same same. It's your preferences that assigns value to the analysis, not that the analysis carries an implicit value statement. I will absolutely use Illusionism in my 5e game -- the system barely works without it. This is mostly because the game requires so much prep to create the kind of "balanced" play it advertises, and having to do encounter design on the fly is hard. 4e made this much easier, but still had a good bit of work involved. It's just a D&Dism.

 

[prabe]

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.

I think my thinking is that the GM has absolutely zero control when a Consequence will come up, and neither do the players, which means no one really has agency over it. That doesn't mean the player doesn't have a greater share of the agency that exists.

 

[prabe]

Exactly. The difference really is that in D&D, you can shuffle your prep to new places and use it, thereby employing some Illusionism (again, I've said this isn't an automatic bad, that 5e essentially requires it in how it's structured). In Blades, doing this is against the rules of the game, and will be obvious that it's been done.

If re-skining is Illusionism, I've done that. If putting something aside and using it if/when it made sense is Illusionism, I've done that. If moving something the PCs tried to avoid to in front of them is Illusionism (and that's the core of what it is, AFAIK) then I haven't done that.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think my thinking is that the GM has absolutely zero control when a Consequence will come up, and neither do the players, which means no one really has agency over it. That doesn't mean the player doesn't have a greater share of the agency that exists.

I'd quibble, but that's because the options, to me, are "never comes up (the GM doesn't call for a roll" or "might come up (the GM calls for a roll)." I've left the any precise value of "might" off because it doesn't really matter to the point. If can have choice between "never" and "might", then choosing "might" exercises some agency over the event coming up -- it's a choice that clearly matters.

Is this less choice that "will," absolutely! Still, it is some control.

 

[Ovinomancer]

If re-skining is Illusionism, I've done that. If putting something aside and using it if/when it made sense is Illusionism, I've done that. If moving something the PCs tried to avoid to in front of them is Illusionism (and that's the core of what it is, AFAIK) then I haven't done that.

Re-skinning isn't Illusionism. There's no choice that invalidated because you've reskinned some monsters.

I could be poor play, though, if you're only reskinning to avoid a PC ability triggers on a type or kind of creature. That's a corner case, though, and should be apparent if it comes up.

 

[Lanefan]

The problem with your assessment is two-fold:

1) You're assuming two things that I have no idea how you can have any confidence in:

a) The lever (or "make-up call") will consistently be pushed in the opposite direction to balance out (see below) the initial lever pull in the opposite direction. This is a massive assumption that I don't see how its warranted in sport or TTRPGing.

I'm not saying it always will balance out, I'm simply saying that it can.

b) You're assuming that whoever is pulling the lever (or just by dumb luck) can quantitatively assess the 1st order impacts and downstream impacts of pulling the lever in EXTREMELY complex systems. This is not just a massive assumption that I don't see how its warranted. Its a virtual impossibility. Any "lever-pulling" isn't even going to measure up to "back of the envelope" maths. Its going to be nonsense. Even getting 1st order impacts correct is going to be an enormous outlier, let alone 2nd and 3rd order impacts.

Take a look at my example above with the 1:1 count.

Umpire screws up a 1:1 call and it ends up costing one Starting Pitcher 40 extra pitches + 4 runs + their confidence (trust me...this is a HUGE thing...I was a Starting Pitcher at an extremely high level through the entirety of my career through College) + the bullpen having to be deployed early (which means matchups can't be dictated later and the bullpen will be exhausted for subsequent games).

Lets just say that Umpire actually realizes they screwed that call up and they're thinking "ya know...I need to make up for this call." So they put into action their "make up call" later in the game when its mostly decided and in a hugely low leverage situation (let's say its 6-1, bottom of the 8th, no runners on, 2 outs).

Is that a "make-up call?"

No. The make-up call comes on the next batter, when a borderline (or maybe not-so-borderline!) 1:1 pitch gets called a strike instead of a ball.

2) You're evaluating agency based on this "theory of gamestate equilibration via make-up calls and/or Force in opposite direction" (see (1) above for why I disagree that this could even be a thing) rather than evaluating agency based on "who is pulling the levers and the potency of said lever pulling!" I mean, by what you're modeling out above (assuming gamestate equilibration is somehow reliably and magically reached...which it can't), you're explicitly saying that the propenderance of agency in a Force-laden game resides with the GM (which it obviously does) because they're capable of yo-yo-ing the gamestate back and forth via strategic applications of Force in order to assure a nice curve fit of the play prescription!

What I'm trying to get at - not very clearly, it seems - is that there's going to be times when a GM is able to cancel out her use of Force by using more Force, to the end result that play winds up roughly where it would have been had no Force been used at all. Won't work every time, of course.

I'm reading these things Lanefan and I'm staggered to think that you believe that you're making a case here for the preponderance of agency for the gamestate's formulation being under the players' purview! How!

Er...huh?

Either I'm missing something, or you've lost me here.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I don't think that infinitely long American football analogy has made any sense for several pages...

 

[Lanefan]

In BitD, the emphasis is place a bit more strongly on the accomplishment of the Crew rather than the accomplishment of the individual characters. Characters may come and go in pursuit of their goals, but hopefully the Crew survives.

This is how I approach D&D - that the accomplishments (and thus the story) of the party are more important than those of the individual characters - and yet I regularly catch hell for it from certain posters here....