A Question Of Agency?

[hawkeyefan]

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.

So your argument against how the Blades play loop allows for several points of player input beyond just the roll of the dice is to ignore all those steps and then declare it same as the play loop you described?

It’s like if I told my wife that my pile of flour with a runny egg on top is the same as the cake she baked....as long as she doesn’t worry about the baking soda, milk, vanilla, baking powder, salt, and milk. They’re exactly the same!!

 

[FrogReaver]

So your argument against how the Blades play loop allows for several points of player input beyond just the roll of the dice is to ignore all those steps and then declare it same as the play loop you described?

In the context of player authorship of the fiction none of that matters. So yes.

It’s like if I told my wife that my pile of flour with a runny egg on top is the same as the cake she baked....as long as she doesn’t worry about the baking soda, milk, vanilla, baking powder, salt, and milk. They’re exactly the same!!

Context is king. You are ignoring the context of my discussion and inserting your own incorrect assumptions into it.

 

[hawkeyefan]

In the context of player authorship of the fiction none of that matters. So yes.


Context is king. You are ignoring the context of my discussion and inserting your own incorrect assumptions into it.

I’m not. I’m bringing @Manbearcat ’s original point back into the discussion. The one he made about how whatever fortune mechanic is in place will be muted by the steps in the play loop. So all those additional steps he included are the way that happens, and are why the cry of RNG isn’t really that relevant.

All those points help mitigate the outcome being one that is purely luck. Every system has them. Blades appears to have more than other games.

If your point is that moat games include some element of chance represented by dice or some similar method, yes, this is clearly true.

If there is some further reason for you describing a play loop....an incomplete description of one as you’ve pointed out....then please help me understand.

 

[FrogReaver]

I’m not. I’m bringing @Manbearcat ’s original point back into the discussion. The one he made about how whatever fortune mechanic is in place will be muted by the steps in the play loop. So all those additional steps he included are the way that happens, and are why the cry of RNG isn’t really that relevant.

It's not a cry of RNG. I have no idea how that's what you took away from my posts, but that part doesn't really matter. You are clearly misunderstanding me. So let me try to help. I don't care how the player succeeded. Whether he rolled and came up success or he rolled and it was a failure and he spent some meta currency to change the roll to a success. It doesn't matter how the result came to be a success. Now those things may matter in relation to agency, but for authorship it doesn't and what I've been discussing in these posts is authorship.

All those points help mitigate the outcome being one that is purely luck. Every system has them. Blades appears to have more than other games.

Good. But it doesn't make any difference if the system is pure luck or not. I'm not arguing that the system is "bad" because your "fate" is in the hands of chance. I'm arguing that it's player authorship when a success occurs and so going through all the ways a player could succeed really isn't necessary.

If your point is that moat games include some element of chance represented by dice or some similar method, yes, this is clearly true.

That's not my point. I agree it clearly is true but it's not my point.

If there is some further reason for you describing a play loop....an incomplete description of one as you’ve pointed out....then please help me understand.

I tried above. If there's anything I can answer for you that will aid your understanding then please ask.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Ha, oh, man, I'm reading through Descent into Avernus, and I'm only at the first "encounter" of the module, after the party gets dragooned by a guard captain, Zodge, into doing a task. The adventure literally says that Zodge has the authority to draft adventurers in times of need, and can have them executed if the refuse, but prefers to have the do his bidding. So, after the dragooning and the charging of a mission, you get this as the second paragraph of the next section about the mission:

Zodge has spies who keep him informed on the characters’ progress. If the characters don’t visit Elfsong Tavern within forty-eight hours of receiving their orders, Zodge sends a squad of six Flaming Fist veterans and one flameskull to escort the characters to the tavern, kill anyone who refuses to go, and report back to him. If the characters destroy or escape this squad, Zodge mobilizes two more squads to hunt them down.

I mean, wow. I have lots of work to do.

How the hell are the players supposed to be remoted interested in following the plot if they're forced on pain of death to comply with it to start?!?

 

[Ovinomancer]

It's not a cry of RNG. I have no idea how that's what you took away from my posts, but that part doesn't really matter. You are clearly misunderstanding me. So let me try to help. I don't care how the player succeeded. Whether he rolled and came up success or he rolled and it was a failure and he spent some meta currency to change the roll to a success. It doesn't matter how the result came to be a success. Now those things may matter in relation to agency, but for authorship it doesn't and what I've been discussing in these posts is authorship.


Good. But it doesn't make any difference if the system is pure luck or not. I'm not arguing that the system is "bad" because your "fate" is in the hands of chance. I'm arguing that it's player authorship when a success occurs and so going through all the ways a player could succeed really isn't necessary.

That's not my point. I agree it clearly is true but it's not my point.

I tried above. If there's anything I can answer for you that will aid your understanding then please ask.

Okay, let's accept this ad argumendum -- it is player authorship when a success occurs in Blades. It is GM authorship when a success or failure occurs in D&D -- it literally says this in the rulebook. So, on the thread topic of player agency, which actually supports player agency -- the one where they have a chance (however gained) to author the outcome, or the one where the GM always has that authority?

 

[prabe]

Ha, oh, man, I'm reading through Descent into Avernus, and I'm only at the first "encounter" of the module, after the party gets dragooned by a guard captain, Zodge, into doing a task. The adventure literally says that Zodge has the authority to draft adventurers in times of need, and can have them executed if the refuse, but prefers to have the do his bidding. So, after the dragooning and the charging of a mission, you get this as the second paragraph of the next section about the mission:

I mean, wow. I have lots of work to do.

How the hell are the players supposed to be remoted interested in following the plot if they're forced on pain of death to comply with it to start?!?

First, this is (part of) why I don't run APs.

Second, there are some "remixes" online that might give you ideas.

Third, good luck!

 

[Ovinomancer]

First, this is (part of) why I don't run APs.

Second, there are some "remixes" online that might give you ideas.

Third, good luck!

Yeah, I'll look at those for ideas, but will probably have to remix the entire start once I get the PCs, their backstories, and their BIFTs. I leveled only one requirement for the PCs -- they had to have ties to Baldur's Gate or Elturel that would cause them to want to try to save them from Hell.

For those watching -- this is me-as-GM causing a reduction in agency associated with the theme of the game. It's paired with the reduction in agency from choosing D&D and then the Forgotten Realms, both of which set constraints on the concepts that can be played. This is not a bad thing at all.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'm arguing that it's player authorship when a success occurs and so going through all the ways a player could succeed really isn't necessary.

If we’re talking about agency, then it absolutely is necessary. I don’t see how you can just dismiss that. Without the context of agency, what does it help to say “when a player succeeds, they get what they want”?

Nor am I certain that’s even true. There is of course the idea that some games allow a GM total authority to modify or overrule any result, but even aside from that, I think the GM can potentially have a lot of input on what a success actually means.

 

[prabe]

For those watching -- this is me-as-GM causing a reduction in agency associated with the theme of the game. It's paired with the reduction in agency from choosing D&D and then the Forgotten Realms, both of which set constraints on the concepts that can be played. This is not a bad thing at all.

I'd be inclined to say that knowing y'all are going to be doing D&D, and then doing D&D, is kinda a good thing. Play the game (and setting) you've chosen to play, I guess.