A Question Of Agency?

[prabe]

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.

Sorry: I was kinda skimming--a 5E session ran like an hour and a half long and I wasn't entirely out of GMing mode. And my brain is probably a bit cooked.

The only thing I have to say about your comparison with combat is that I think it's a purer/fairer analogy in systems that have single-check combat, if that makes sense. I'm pretty sure I know at least the rough shape of what you're getting at otherwise, and I think the painting is the closest direct analogy, as (presumably) the existence of the painting and the orc have been established in the fiction, whereas the possible secret door and the Rufus' location haven't. But this isn't a hill I particularly want to fight over tonight.

 

[FrogReaver]

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?

I agree.

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

That was in relation to a game where the player was proposing what the fiction would be upon a success. Context! (And I probably could have been more explicit and nuanced in my initial formulation as well).

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.

Sounds good so far.

Do you think this applies to all player declared actions?

From a practical standpoint that's hard to say with any real certainty. D&D just isn't that strict about such things and many groups play differently with their own unique variations on the game.

That said, I cannot think of an action to which it wouldn't apply, at least by my understanding of the rules.

Do you think that in many cases, a player may absolutely have a success state in mind at 1?

Yes

And if so, would you say that the DM is free to deviate from that expected outcome at 3?

What does being free to do a thing even mean? I'm really not trying to be difficult with this, but it kinda feels like we are heading for the whole "In America one isn't free to yell fire in a crowded theatre" with the other responding "well they are technically free to do it but there will be consequences".

I assume you mean to ask, does doing that violate any rules within the game. If that's what you mean, I can't think of any. But if you are asking, will doing so be consequence free - well that's going to depend on the social contract and player expectations - I did mention there was a great deal of variation in D&D play from table to table right?

 

[FrogReaver]

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.

I'm not sure why the focus on D&D combat rules. We all know and acknowledge that D&D combat isn't typically ran the same as the rest of the D&D game.

D&D uses a much more detailed combat system than it does for anything non-combat related. That high level of detail and stakes associated with combat does tend to set up player expectations that combat should follow the system with as little deviation as possible.

Essentially - "given combat isn't like the rest of the game, why does any of this matter"?

 

[FrogReaver]

I see alot of talk about what can a D&D DM do. The rules allow them to do nearly anything (combat being more up to interpretation). The real question that should be asked when the DM is so empowered isn't what can they do, it's what should/shouldn't they do?

The #1 thing they should do is to make the game fun, engaging and entertaining for their players and for themselves. This is why you see so many playstyles in D&D - because at the end of the day, if your players are happy with whatever you are doing that's all that ultimately matters and 5e D&D actively encourages that mindset.

 

[pemerton]

I see alot of talk about what can a D&D DM do. The rules allow them to do nearly anything (combat being more up to interpretation). The real question that should be asked when the DM is so empowered isn't what can they do, it's what should/shouldn't they do?

Do you think this has any bearing on the question of how much agency the players enjoy?

I'm not sure why the focus on D&D combat rules. We all know and acknowledge that D&D combat isn't typically ran the same as the rest of the D&D game.

D&D uses a much more detailed combat system than it does for anything non-combat related. That high level of detail and stakes associated with combat does tend to set up player expectations that combat should follow the system with as little deviation as possible.

Essentially - "given combat isn't like the rest of the game, why does any of this matter"?

Imagine how you would respond to someone who told you either of the following:

(1) A D&D player has no more agency in combat resolution than if the GM was allowed to just make up the results of declared attacks;

(2) A game in which combat is resolved by rules will fall apart due to inconsistent fiction and the players getting out of control and just making up outcomes and then dicing for them.

Then imagine how a RPG in which the rules govern action resolution outside combat in a way that broadly resembles the constraints of D&D combat. Someone who was familiar with such RPGs would have the same sorts of responses to (1) and (2) in respect of it.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I'm not sure why the focus on D&D combat rules. We all know and acknowledge that D&D combat isn't typically ran the same as the rest of the D&D game.

D&D uses a much more detailed combat system than it does for anything non-combat related. That high level of detail and stakes associated with combat does tend to set up player expectations that combat should follow the system with as little deviation as possible.

Essentially - "given combat isn't like the rest of the game, why does any of this matter"?

I think the division over combat and non-combat, and why you need so many combat rules in a game like D&D, but you don't necessarily need as many non-combat, is it is pretty easy to resolve a lot of non-combat with less bickering over the results than combat. Combat can easily devolve into "bang bang, I shot you dead" and "No, I shot you first" without clear rules. It is easier, I think for a lot of people, to hash out non-combat stuff without rules, because it is a simple matter of saying something like "I look under the table to see what is there", and the GM simply reporting what is there, or asking the guard a question about who came to visit the prisoner, and the GM simply needs to base the response on things like who visited, what the guard knows, what the guard is willing to share, what might persuade the guard, and what the player actually said to the guard that might impact his response. I realize in some groups that non-combat part of the game can also devolve into 'bang bang, your dead"/"No, I shot you first". But it doesn't for a lot of people, and even for those who it does, the stakes of combat are generally lower (non-combat might be very important to an adventure, but it doesn't as often result in dead characters the way combat does). Also it is worth pointing out that the complexity of combat in D&D does vary from edition to edition.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I agree.

Okay, cool.

That was in relation to a game where the player was proposing what the fiction would be upon a success. Context! (And I probably could have been more explicit and nuanced in my initial formulation as well).

That didn’t seem to be the case at all, but if so, then okay I’ll proceed with that in mind.

So then given that you agree above that a D&D player will have an outcome in mind for their declared action, how is that different from the Blades player?

Sounds good so far.


From a practical standpoint that's hard to say with any real certainty. D&D just isn't that strict about such things and many groups play differently with their own unique variations on the game.

That said, I cannot think of an action to which it wouldn't apply, at least by my understanding of the rules.

I’d say that lack of a clear process is likely part of the problem. I mean, in many ways the ability to take D&D and then make it work how you want is a feature. But when there are vagaries left in the rules that’s something different, and is a bug for sure.

Yes


What does being free to do a thing even mean? I'm really not trying to be difficult with this, but it kinda feels like we are heading for the whole "In America one isn't free to yell fire in a crowded theatre" with the other responding "well they are technically free to do it but there will be consequences".

I assume you mean to ask, does doing that violate any rules within the game. If that's what you mean, I can't think of any. But if you are asking, will doing so be consequence free - well that's going to depend on the social contract and player expectations - I did mention there was a great deal of variation in D&D play from table to table right?

Well no, it’s not a “yelling fire in a theater” situation. That is most definitely illegal.

I’m asking if the DM is free, either within the rules or within the social contract of the gaming group, to take a successful action declaration, and make it so that the success is something other than what the player expected.

The player declared that their Rogue was going to attempt to disarm the trap.

The player declared that their Fighter was going to attempt to attack the orc.

The player declared that their Bard was going to attempt to Persuade the baron to provide the party with horses.

In each of these cases, the player has an outcome in mind. Wouldn’t success result in that desired outcome? Or may the DM alter the outcome?

If the DM may alter the outcome, then would you agree that this reduces a player’s agency?

If the DM cannot alter the outcome, then are we back to the player declaring both action and intended outcome? Doesn’t this render the (3) in my previous post as not applicable on a success?

I'm not sure why the focus on D&D combat rules. We all know and acknowledge that D&D combat isn't typically ran the same as the rest of the D&D game.

D&D uses a much more detailed combat system than it does for anything non-combat related. That high level of detail and stakes associated with combat does tend to set up player expectations that combat should follow the system with as little deviation as possible.

Essentially - "given combat isn't like the rest of the game, why does any of this matter"?

Because combat is where a player in D&D has the most agency. The rules are (mostly) clear, interpretation is minimal, and the dice are involved quite a bit. The DM is mostly bound to the results of the dice, and generally speaking if he decides to alter thee outcome, it’s seen as a bad thing. Combat is also the one area of D&D where nearly everyone will agree, anything can happen. The result is not a foregone conclusion.

Imagine if the DM was not discouraged from simply negating an action in combat. He could just alter any result as desired, usually to match some preconceived idea he has about the fiction. What would this do to player agency?

Imagine if the social and exploration pillars of D&D had similar structure to combat. The DM would follow established processes, the players would declare actions, the dice would determine success or failure, and the DM would honor those results. The DM would not be steering things toward their idea of how the fiction should go. What would this do to player agency?

 

[FrogReaver]

Do you think this has any bearing on the question of how much agency the players enjoy?

It has everything to do with how much agency the players have. A player's agency isn't impacted by what a DM can do, it's only impacted by what the DM does.

I think what you are talking about is more - "how much player agency does the game guarantee?" If that's what you are saying then I agree. D&D doesn't guarantee very much to the players.

Imagine how you would respond to someone who told you either of the following:

(1) A D&D player has no more agency in combat resolution than if the GM was allowed to just make up the results of declared attacks;

I would say - did the GM "make up" results of declared attacks? The answer to that is nearly always going to be a no. I guess that's why I asked about why we are focusing on combat, the one area in D&D where the GM is least likely to actually do anything that would actually take away player agency over anything.

(2) A game in which combat is resolved by rules will fall apart due to inconsistent fiction and the players getting out of control and just making up outcomes and then dicing for them.

That doesn't make any sense to me so I'd ask them to elaborate.

Then imagine how a RPG in which the rules govern action resolution outside combat in a way that broadly resembles the constraints of D&D combat. Someone who was familiar with such RPGs would have the same sorts of responses to (1) and (2) in respect of it.

Okay.... but is this relevant at all? The closest I've seen to 1) is my argument that less agency in a given moment can lead to more agency and even that's really not close to the same thing. I've never seen anything at all resembling 2). No one here is saying that your game doesn't work or will fall apart.

So really, what relevance do you see in this?

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well no, it’s not a “yelling fire in a theater” situation. That is most definitely illegal.

Sorry, totally off topic, but this quote actually comes from one of the worst SCOTUS rulings on free speech (Schneck v US) -- where they ruled to uphold convictions for sedition for WW1 draft protestors for handing out flyers against the draft. The argument that quote presents was thoroughly overturned by Brandenburg v Ohio (and this is the seminal free speech case for modern law). It's not actually illegal to (falsely) shout fire in a crowded theater.

I find Popehat (aka Ken White) to be particularly eloquent on the matter, if anyone wishes further reading.

Apologies, and I now return you to the argument about elf games.

 

[Campbell]

I think the division over combat and non-combat, and why you need so many combat rules in a game like D&D, but you don't necessarily need as many non-combat, is it is pretty easy to resolve a lot of non-combat with less bickering over the results than combat. Combat can easily devolve into "bang bang, I shot you dead" and "No, I shot you first" without clear rules. It is easier, I think for a lot of people, to hash out non-combat stuff without rules, because it is a simple matter of saying something like "I look under the table to see what is there", and the GM simply reporting what is there, or asking the guard a question about who came to visit the prisoner, and the GM simply needs to base the response on things like who visited, what the guard knows, what the guard is willing to share, what might persuade the guard, and what the player actually said to the guard that might impact his response. I realize in some groups that non-combat part of the game can also devolve into 'bang bang, your dead"/"No, I shot you first". But it doesn't for a lot of people, and even for those who it does, the stakes of combat are generally lower (non-combat might be very important to an adventure, but it doesn't as often result in dead characters the way combat does). Also it is worth pointing out that the complexity of combat in D&D does vary from edition to edition.

I think broadly speaking if you are using the rules of the game as a means to settle disputes between players you have already lost. If we cannot come to consensus about stuff in the fiction we probably should not be playing together. I think game rules should be layered on top. They should add something to the experience.