A Question Of Agency?

[Lanefan]

Don't particularly want to turn this into a 4e thread and I'm somewhat surprised you're asking this because we've had this discussion many times before (and I'm certain you've been in them).

If this discussion's been had recently, I'm pretty sure I stayed out of it. If you're talking about discussions from 10+ years ago when 4e was new, I've - perhaps mercifully - forgotten them.

But to refresh your memory (and anyone else who might care why 4e doesn't have the Spellcaster problem):

* All Classes are on the same, unified resource schedule scheme (AEDU). Character resources no longer have power discrepancy and refresh discrepancy that the game must be awkwardly balanced around (which introduces all of the other things like Magical Arms/Races, Rock/Paper/Scissors, and Calvinball GMing to block spellcasters).

* The most powerful Spells in classic D&D are siloed to Rituals. Rituals are (a) costly, (b) everyone has access to them, (c) they aren't usable in combat except very specific situations, and (d) they're almost exclusively a tool for either (i) reframing and/or transitioning scenes (as 4e is a scene-based game) or (ii) to invoke the fictional positioning necessary to allow for a Skill Challenge (to open up a scene that would otherwise be presently unavailable to the players).

* Everyone can get access to the Skill Arcana.

* The game is fully scene-based and Noncombat Conflict Resolution is the organized like Clocks in World/Forged in the Dark games or the Conflict mechanics of Mouse Guard et al. The Skill Challenge is a scene with an inherent dramatic arc and discrete gamestate moments that follows pretty much the exact same indie GMing ethos that is being espoused in this thread; play to find out, say yes or roll the dice, follow the fiction, follow the players lead (and react), genre logic, change the situation (after each moment of action resolution), and fail forward. The framework, the maths, and the GMing ethos means that Martial answers to gamestate problems are just as potent and reliable as Arcane/Divine/Primal answeres to gamestate problems.

Now you're reminding me of all the factors what turned me away from 4e!

 

[Lanefan]

The player can't just whistle up a solution to any problem and roll some dice and get it

Perhaps not; but these various posts often read as though the player can whistle up a solution to any problem and then roll some dice and try to get it.

And if the dice come out good, the player does get it; and I think this might be what @FrogReaver is talking about...?

The worst manipulation the GM can do is soft-pedal things. They can let off the adversity hose and say "yes" more often, or not pay off threatened consequences on a failure. But this isn't driving an outcome so much as it is just trying to be nice to players. You still can't get a preferred outcome over time, you're just letting the PCs off easy when you shouldn't. And, to be fair, this is a hard part of GMing a game like Blades -- you have to keep pouring it on if it's the result.

Does Blades support a GM killing off PCs? 'Cause if so, there's a limit to how hard you can pour it on unless you're after a TPK...

I can see how this would be a tricky balancing act, and probably take some trial-and-error to get right.

 

[Lanefan]

Yeah, unfortunately it's presented as a journal -- no play interactions are noted. It's not really useful to analyze for moments of agency.

Yeah, I rarely make note of game mechanical stuff in my game logs unless it's spectacular, and then only as a side note e.g. one entry from years ago where a low-level Elf (with 75% sleep resistance) was getting hit by repeated sleep spells:

A magic-user twice puts all to sleep except Althaire (who made her resistance rolls by 3% and then 2%, with failure on either meaning end of Party) who kills him off.

 

[Lanefan]

This doesn't seem like a very accurate description of play. There's no "convincing fellow players" - there's just declaring actions for your PC.

Given that it seems other players, as well as the GM, can call for a check then you need to convince your fellow players, along with the GM, that there isn't a need for one; in order to be 100% sure of getting your way.

You seem to look at action declaration through the lens of should the GM allow this? or is it just bullshitting? A lens of worries about <something, I'm not 100% sure> and hence the need for these GM-enforced constraints. @Lanefan seems to look through a similar lens.

Once the focus of play moves from solving the GM's mystery to seeing how these characters develop - what choices do they make, and what happens to them? then all those worries can be let go.

Let go, or merely replaced by different worries?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Perhaps not; but these various posts often read as though the player can whistle up a solution to any problem and then roll some dice and try to get it.

And if the dice come out good, the player does get it; and I think this might be what @FrogReaver is talking about...?

There's a difference between leveraging the fiction and just whistling things up.

Does Blades support a GM killing off PCs? 'Cause if so, there's a limit to how hard you can pour it on unless you're after a TPK...

The concept of a TPK is part of D&D style play. Could it happen that all PCs die in a score? Surr, but that is astronomically unlikely given how things play out. Besides, death is rarely the worst thing that can happen.

I can see how this would be a tricky balancing act, and probably take some trial-and-error to get right.

I don't "balance" anything. There's no "right" amount of softballing. My job is to be the firehose of advesity, and the game works at its best when I am.

 

[FrogReaver]

In my experience of playing CRPGs/games that feature dice/card games (from Hold 'em to MtG), "RNG" is invoked when the player-base feels that the "input > output" maths aren't elegant/functional, are arbitrarily swingy, and therefore drown out the signal of skill/deft play.

I think in some games, the epithet of "RNG" is warranted. But I'm certain that is not a prominent feature of the games being invoked in this thread (even 5e with Advantage/Disadvantage...which is trivially still the swingiest game of all the games discussed in this thread).

What I have seen in computer games is a loud vocal minority of players advocating for the removal of the RNG from games they like on the basis that the RNG takes away from skilled play which is pretty similar to your description above.

But still, a random number generator (RNG) is an actual thing. Labeling something that is a random number generator as an RNG isn't an epithet against it. It's literally just an identification of what it is. A dice is an RNG.

And I will add, focusing on me calling it an RNG as if that was somehow meant derogatory (despite my known preference for D&D and all the RNG used in D&D games) really misses the point of what that post was about - and it was a very important point. Does gating authorship behind a mechanic that relies on chance (RNG) mean that it's no longer authorship?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

But still, a random number generator (RNG) is an actual thing. Labeling something that is a random number generator as an RNG isn't an epithet against it. It's literally just an identification of what it is. A dice is an RNG.

Yes. And that's how I meant it. It was a description.

 

[FrogReaver]

Each game's basic play loop is going to be subtly different. And in that process, whatever Fortune Resolution mechanic (roll 1d20 + modifier vs target number, gather and roll dice pool and take best vs spread of possible results, etc) is involved in the game will have its variability muted to whatever degree.

For Blades:

Step 1: Player proposes fiction and states goal.
Step 2: Say yes? No? Roll the dice.
Step 3: Player chooses Action Rating.
Step 4: Discuss Position and Effect based on circumstances and Factors.
Step 5: Trade Position for Effect and vice versa?
Step 6: Discuss possible fallout/Consequences.
Step 7: Set Up? Push? Assistance? Teamwork? Group Action? Devil's Bargain? Flashback?
Step 8: From Step 3 and Step 7 gather dice pool. Roll and consult results relative to Position and Effect.
Step 9: Less than 6? Consequence?
Step 10: Anyone Protect(ing) PC from Consequence? Resistance Roll to mitigate Consequence?
Step 11: Mark Stress/Harm/Heat/Coin/Trauma/Clock Ticks/Rep.
Step 12: Reframe situation according to gains and consequences and with respect to the gamestate of the Score.

Repeat.

---

Unsurprisingly, 4e Skill Challenges have a huge amount of overlap with the above.

Surely you can see my step 1 and 2 is essentially the same as your step 1 and 2 - the only difference being I chose the play loop branch where the dice were rolled and came up as a success because that's the particular part of the play loop I wanted to examine.

My step 3 is also essentially the same as your step 12. For the purposes of examining authorship on a successful role my play loop is alot more concise and to the point. Maybe a more accurate description of what I provided is a play loop branch as opposed to the full play loop as I'm just looking at the branch of the loop where the RNG shows success. I'm not saying your full play loop isn't useful to have - it is, but it doesn't contradict what I posted, it's just far more detailed. Some might say overly detailed for the point I was bringing up.

That point being - authorship that's gated behind an RNG is still authorship when the RNG shows success.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Does Blades support a GM killing off PCs? 'Cause if so, there's a limit to how hard you can pour it on unless you're after a TPK...

If lethality is the only drawback that a GM can come up with, then this may be true. But Blades allows for many and various consequences beyond just the threat of death.

But yes, PCs can die or otherwise be removed from play permanently. The first way is for the PC to be hit with Level 4 Harm, which is lethal. However, the player can resist this and reduce the harm to Level 3, at the potential cost of some Stress. Level 3 still largely removes the PC from the action, and is likely to linger a while, but it’s not lethal.

But, if a PC accumulates 9 Stress, then they are also out of the action for this score, and they take a Trauma. This is a permanent tag that marks them in some way (for example Haunted, Unbalanced, Paranoid). Traumas actually offer additional ways for PCs to earn XP by the player invoking them to complicate things for themselves or the crew, so they’re not all bad, but once you’ve accumulated 4 Traumas, your PC simply cannot continue and either dies or retires or goes mad or whatever seems appropriate.

Given that it seems other players, as well as the GM, can call for a check then you need to convince your fellow players, along with the GM, that there isn't a need for one; in order to be 100% sure of getting your way.

But this take plays to the point that declaring an action is seeking approval. @pemerton ’s point was that once you stop looking at it this way, it becomes obvious that there’s nothing to worry about. Your response is to insist there’s no other way to look at it.

Let go, or merely replaced by different worries?

Given how you seem to view the ideas of games other than yours as tales of bigfoot in the wild....like, you’ve heard of them but until such a game shows up in your yard and eats your dog, you simply refuse to accept that they’re real....I’m sure you will indeed continue to craft imaginary worries about them.

 

[FrogReaver]

That's not a very good account of the basic play loop of a player-agency-supporting RPG, because it assumes what is false, namely, that checks always succeed.

From my side it feels like needless quibbling and obfuscating of an otherwise good point I made over my error in saying "play loop" as opposed to "play loop branch".

Maybe you will address the actual point being made instead of complaining about the precision of language used to make the point?

The point being, when the RNG shows a player success and the fiction matches exactly what the player proposed, how is that not authorship?