A Question Of Agency?

[pemerton]

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

I'm not sure what you think follows from this point.

I can say what I think follows from it: RPGing, at least in the context of a "living, breathing world" involves collectively establishing a fiction. We can also call that authorship. The game is set up so that there are competing visions of the fiction - that's a fundamental part of the design. One role of random number generation is to manage these competing visions.

Roughly speaking, the players have the job of portraying and advocating for their PCs - so through their action declarations they are pushing to author fiction that runs in favour of their PCs. (Be that defeating the attacking Orc, or finding Evard's tower, or whatever else the PCs might be hoping to achieve.)

The GM's role is to establish fiction - by presenting situations in which the PCs find themselves - in which achieving those goals is not guaranteed. In the fiction this manifests itself as obstacles or challenges - eg the Orc is defending itself or the location of Evard's tower is not common knowledge. Sometimes the obstacles are implicit, sometimes they are expressly called out and made a big deal of.

Because of the obstacles/challenges, there is a plausible fiction in which the PCs don't get what they want. In which their declared actions fail.

How do we decide which vision of the fiction becomes the "true", shared one? That's what the mechanics are for. Sometimes those mechanics are fiat mechanics: in Prince Valiant, for example, the GM may have access to special effects which allow the imposition of a consequence onto a PC without the player having a chance to prevent it - this is how, in my game, Sir Morgath became infatuated with Lady Lorette of Lothian and Toulouse. Players may also have access to fiat mechanics: many traditional D&D spells take this form, and in Prince Valiant players can gain access to special effects via Storyteller Certificates: this is how the player of Sir Gerran brought it about that Sir Gerran's wife, whom he married for political reasons, fell in love with him; and this is how Sir Morgath was able to defeat Sir Lionheart, "the greatest knight in Britain" (perhaps exaggerated, but far the superior of Sir Morgath) in a joust.

But more often the mechanics involve random number generation. Depending on the details of the system, the output may be that the player gets to author in accordance with the declared action; or that the player gets partial but not full authorship; perhaps the GM may also get some partial authorship (eg "success with a complication"); in some cases, like a 6- result in AW, the GM gets full authorship ("make as hard and direct a move as you like").

As I think I already mentioned upthread, different mechanics - with their varying probabilities, and their varying allocations of full or partial authorship to participants - help determine not only whose vision for the fiction is realised and to what degree, but other things like pacing, the dynamics of success vs failure, etc.

I take it that you don't think that random number generation is a good way to manage these matters - ie whose vision becomes part of the fiction, pacing and "story" dynamics, and the like. Do you have a preferred method?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Does everyone know the board game Cluedo (Clue to Americans)? It is not a roleplaying game (albeit much more fun when everyone roleplays their characters,) but I try to make an analogy. (Which always goes well...) Imagine that instead of using the normal rules for gathering evidence, on their turn the player could name one suspect, weapon or room they search a clue about. It they rolled well enough, they would gain a clue about that specific thing. Once they had collected one of each category, they could make a final accusation with that combination (Colonel Mustard, in the dining room, with a knife) and if they rolled well enough that combination would be the correct one and they would win. Would this version have more player agency than the normal version? And yes, I know the first objection will be that it is completely differnt because it has no GM, but the standard version's secret envelope containing the correct solution is here analogous to the GM's 'secret backstory' based on which they do their best to judge things fairly. (I also understand that this is not at analogous to all GM directed games, but a certain subsection of them.)

I don’t think the major difference is the lack of a GM. I think the major difference is that Clue is a competitive game and all participants have the same ability to determine the outcome of the game.

RPGs are not typically competitive. And the distinction between GM and player means that very often, they don’t have the same ability to determine the outcome of the game.

 

[pemerton]

my main point was that if the mechanics allow you to state things about the fictional reality and roll to see whether it sticks, then that becomes the main way of solving problems. Instead of finding clues to figure out who was the murderer, you invent clues and roll the dice to see if your invention applies. Both are perfectly fine ways to play and produce a differnt experience, but I cannot accept that the latter is somehow clearly higher agency method than the former.

This takes as a premise that the goal of play is to learn what is written in the GM's notes. It presupposes either literal map-and-key techniques, or else an approach that is modelled on map-and-key but extends that to other exploration-oriented action declarations (eg We go to the library and see what we can learn about such-and-such, with the resolution being that the GM then tells the players what is in his/her notes about information that can be found in the library).

When I play Burning Wheel I am not playing to learn what is written in the GM's notes. I am playing to find out what happens to my PC - in Thurgon's case, will he be able to liberate Auxol and rebuild the Iron Tower and realise the will of the Lord of Battle? Will he fail in some way? Will he change - eg reconcile himself to Auxol's new status, or even lose his faith?

The fact that the play of the game is about these things is, already and in itself, a manifestation of player agency. (As @chaochou pointed out way upthread.)

The "problems" that have to be solved can be anything from finding someone to help us cross the river, to fighting a demon, to ensuring that Aramina has a restful sleep after she collapsed as a result of trying to cast spells. The way to solve these problems is to declare actions. In the first case, I kept a look out for other members or former members of my order, and (in system terms, because my Circles check was a success) we met an ex-knight of the Iron Tower who carried us over the river on his raft. In the second case, I fought the demon (in system terms, I scripted and resolved various attack and defence actions, and also relied heavily on my armour) until it withdrew from battle, I think because the time of its summoning was coming to an end; as a result I earned an infamous reputation in the Hells as an implacable demon foe (in system terms, this was a consequence determined by the GM). In the third case, I foraged for food and herbs but in the course of cooking them inadvertently set Evard's tower alight - at least we didn't eat the bad food!, as I threw the contents of the skillet onto the fire in an attempt to extinguish it (failed untrained foraging check followed by failed cooking check followed by failed die-of-fate roll to see if the skillet contents put out the fire).

These action declarations were framed and resolved by reference to the system rules. I suspect the only ones that involved "notes" of any sort were those against the demon, because in Burning Wheel combat resolution is affected by the stats of the character being fought as well as the PC's stats, and so the GM must have had stats for the demon written up. The others were all resolved using the rules for setting obstacles for action declarations. Despite the absence of GM notes, there is simply no resemblance between this actual play experience and your descriptions of "stat[ing] things about the fictional reality and roll[ing] to see whether it sticks" or "invent[ing] clues and roll[ing] the dice to see if your invention applies".

 

[hawkeyefan]

What in D&D does a player state about the fictional reality that they then roll to see if it sticks? The player in D&D simply doesn't propose fictional reality - other than his characters actions. He does author his PC's actions (attempted), whereas the DM typically authors the outcomes of those actions. Contrast that to the much talked about painting example where the player authored the PC as attempting to attune to the painting and also what would be the outcome if they were successful.

I think that even in D&D, many actions that are declared have an expected outcome. Some are vague as hell and cause all kinds of issues, but many are straightforward. By that I mean that when a player declares an action, they have a success state in mind.

Would you agree with the bolded bit? Do we need examples?

If you don't agree, why not?

The painting example was more explicit than that. It wasn't simply about whether it was supernatural. It was about whether it would be usable to solve a particular goal.

The goal was to smooth things over with the university. The plan was to do so by bringing them something supernatural.

You are conflating the ability to author the action with the ability to author the outcome.

Earlier, you said that success of any kind meant that the player had authored it. That’s what I’ve been responding to.

In D&D the player authors their action and the DM authors the outcome regardless of success or failure.

Okay, if this is the stance you’re settling on, then we can discuss this, sure.

So let’s look at the basic process in D&D as I understand your take per the quoted post. Let’s assume this is for an action where there is uncertainty, and so the dice are needed.

1- The player declares an action.
2-The dice determine success or failure.
3- The DM then determines and declares the outcome of either success or failure.

Do you think this applies to all player declared actions?

Do you think that in many cases, a player may absolutely have a success state in mind at 1? And if so, would you say that the DM is free to deviate from that expected outcome at 3?

 

[pemerton]

The mechanics of most RPGs allow you to state things about the fictional reality and then roll to see if they stick.

The primary distinction in the Blades exampled compared to similar things in D&D is simply that the possibility that there was something supernatural about the painting originated with the player rather than the GM.

That's really it. You guys don't like it....which is fine. But that's Player Agency....that's the player having the ability to introduce elements to the fiction through action declaration.

Over multiple posts over multiple threads over multiple years I have said exactly what you say here - from the point of view of the mechanics or basic structure of game play there is no difference between:

• I attack the Orc, hoping to defeat it in combat;
• I search the wall, hoping to find a secret door;
• I attune to the painting, because if it's magical I want to gift it to the university
• As we enter the territory of Auxol, I keep my eyes open for my brother Rufus who still lives here.

All involve the player (i) saying what it is that his/her PC is doing, and (ii) saying what they hope will result from it. Because that result is an event in the fiction - the Orc is defeated; a secret door is found; the paining is discovered to be magical; we encounter Rufus - it follows (inevitably, I think) that if the player's hope is realised the fiction is changed ("authored") in a fashion that s/he wants.

Sometimes, in some systems and some contexts, the GM has already decided that the event is not going to be part of the fiction. So regardless of what the player rolls on the attack dice, the GM narrates the Orc as undefeated; regardless of what the player rolls on the searching die, the GM tells the player that no secret door is found; regardless of what the player rolls on the attunement die, the GM narrates that the painting is not magical; regardless of what the player rolls on the Streetwise or Circles or Gather Information or whatever dice, the GM tells the player that the PCs do no come across Rufus.

There are very few RPGs in which the combat rules are presented as permitting the GM to just decide that an Orc is not defeated in combat, and so GM decisions about this sort of thing normally get discussed under the label of "fudging". But the structure of resolution and decision-making is no different in the other cases than in the "combat fudging" case.

Likewise, the idea that players will take "unearned victories" in the non-combat cases has no more merit than it does in relation to the combat case. They are all just action declarations that, if successful, introduce new events into the fiction which are the ones the player is hoping for.

The idea that a game will "fall apart" if the PCs are able to discover secret doors that the GM didn't decide on in advance is no different from the idea that a game will "fall apart" if the PCs are able to defeat Orcs that the GM didn't decide on in advance. If one takes either idea seriously, the implication is that the only games that won't fall apart are railroads.

And on the Czege-principle side-issue: in each case it the framing of the situation as including the Orc, the wall, the painting, or the arrival at Auxol is the result either of past action resolution or of GM stipulation. So the idea that the player is both author of the problem and author of the solution is shown to be false in virtue of that fact alone.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I inserted the '{---}' to show where a missing clause needs to go; that clause being "regarding your character" or similar, in which case yes it does apply to most RPGs.

In far fewer RPGs can one state things about the fictional reality remote from your character (e.g. the widget is hidden in this chest) and then roll to see if it sticks.

So the issue for you is one of where an idea in the fictional world originates; is that a fair assessment? You think that is the purview of the GM and not the players, except under very specific circumstances.

Do I have that right?

 

[pemerton]

Is a D&D GM at liberty, in determining the result of a declared action I attack the Orc, to disregard the result of the player's rolls plus modifiers, to disregard his/her prior notes about the Orc's AC and hit points, and to just decide what happens?

As my previous post probably makes clear, my view is that such a claim is highly controversial. The rulebooks strongly imply the opposite, by setting out (i) a process for resolving combat which at no point mentions such a role for the GM, and (ii) containing page after page of monsters and NPCs listed with ACs and hit points with no suggestion that that information is not to be treated in the way the combat rules suggest it should be.

Hence why discussions of such GM practices take place under labels like "fudging". Ie they are departures from the stated and implied rules of the game.

 

[Bedrockgames]

These seems like an incredibly specious argument to me

 

[prabe]

Is a D&D GM at liberty, in determining the result of a declared action I attack the Orc, to disregard the result of the player's rolls plus modifiers, to disregard his/her prior notes about the Orc's AC and hit points, and to just decide what happens?

I don't think this is all that unusual (or particularly inappropriate) in instances where the party is definitely going to kill something, just from how the math works, to wrap up a combat in a hurry. That's not the same thing, though.

 

[pemerton]

I don't think this is all that unusual (or particularly inappropriate) in instances where the party is definitely going to kill something, just from how the math works, to wrap up a combat in a hurry. That's not the same thing, though.

I agree. It's a version of "saying 'yes'". I was envisaging the scenario I'd mentioned in my post just upthread of the one you quoted, were "the GM has already decided that the event is not going to be part of the fiction [and s]o regardless of what the player rolls on the attack dice, the GM narrates the Orc as undefeated".

Now I think there's a further question as to whether "saying 'yes" is a good technique, or can be turned into a good technique, in a game where resource management is meant to be an important part of play. But that's a bit different from the current focus of the discussion.