A Question Of Agency?

[FrogReaver]

I think you are speaking to an aesthetic preference that dice rolls only resolve an uncertainty in how well a character performs an action. In games like Burning Wheel and Blades in the Dark the roll does not resolve how well you did. It tells us what happens.

It's a preference sure. But I think it does it a disservice to dismiss it as "just being a preference". It's important to note why it is my preference. One of the biggest issues here is that the action is being described as if it's a PC action. PC actions should be the fictional cause of something happening in the fiction or else as I noted, it doesn't really make sense for your PC to engage in them.

Now if you want to talk about mechanics that aren't the result of PC actions, that might make for a good discussion. But I think we established that most of the games we are discussing are played via the PC's doing things. So maybe that wouldn't be all that meaningful a discussion.

You have an aesthetic preference for the GM at least feigning certainty about where the ally might be in this moment. They might not be certain of what is happening offscreen, but you do not want them to use the roll to decide that.

Not precisely. I don't mind whatever process the DM wants to go through to generate certainty about where an ally might be - so long as it doesn't hinge on me having my character do something that doesn't make fictional sense to do. If he wants to roll a d20 and randomly generate it. If he just wants to say, he's nearby by fiat or his more in depth knowledge of the setting and the NPC in question. All of that is fine.

For what it is worth my preferred way to handle this in character focused games is for the GM to just be permissive instead. Unless there is a well established reason for a player not to be able to meet with an ally I think they should be able to. Just frame a scene around it. I believe in rewarding engagement with the setting. It's what I want to see.

I have no problem with that either.

I mean in sandbox games there might be other concerns (they might have other stuff they are doing), but I still believe in leaning into those ties.

No problem there either.

 

[Hriston]

I think it would help to show it this way:
1. My level 1 fighter swings my mundane sword at the Orc
2. Mechanical Resolution "successful"
3. A meteor falls from the sky and kills the orc.

If you want to call that a causal relationship of the sword swing causing a meteor to fall feel free. But that's missing the rather important point that swinging swords don't actually cause meteors to fall from the sky (which is why we say there is no causal link).

*Note this is the same mechanical framework present in the "I look for friends" -> mechanical resolution "successful" -> "your friends are here"

I'm not sure how meteors became part of this, but I don't think the causal process I look for my friends => I find my friends is that far fetched. A common result of looking for something is often finding it.

 

[FrogReaver]

I guess I'm look for clarity here. Is it seeking allies that you are objecting to?

Not really. More the how that's done.

Is it that the dice roll resolves uncertainty as to what happens rather than how well the character did?

No. I firmly believe in dice to resolve uncertainty. Even in RNG aiding the DM or Player when they are torn between two suitable actions. Heck maybe the DM even asks the player to roll to make that a bit more engaging. All that's fine.

So an important thing to consider is that Burning Wheel is played out on very zoomed out level. Let It Ride means that a single roll often encapsulates what would be the result of entire adventures in D&D in a single roll.

That adds quite a bit more context. If we are on that level then I doubt I would have any real issues. I was thinking the mechanic we were discussing was from blades. Maybe I'm getting my wires crossed.

 

[FrogReaver]

I'm not sure how meteors became part of this, but I don't think the causal process I look for my friends => I find my friends is that far fetched. A common result of looking for something is often finding it.

The context was in relation to chance meetings with your friends. I figured someone would eventually chime in and say something to this effect. If you are going to your friend to find him then I have no issue. If your "looking for friends" causes a roll that results in a chance encounter with them. That's the where the issue is.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The little dog is my token (or avatar) in Monopoly but that doesn't mean I'm role-playing it.

Of course not. In Monopoly, you're playing the role of a real-estate mogul in a game trying to show how bad capitalism, not the little dog.

In other words, bad choice, because Monopoly does have you assume a role. Try Sorry! No role there.

What you're suggesting is that you can play a role without in fact playing the role, which seems rather odd.

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying I can play a role without play-acting it. I gave a clear play example earlier in the thread between Bob the Fighter and Fynn' the Many-Titled. Bob's player never once used first person or even related Bob's thoughts in any way. He certainly didn't use a funny voice or play-act as Bob. And, yet, he was roleplaying Bob the Fighter as much as Fynn's player. You don't have to play-act to roleplay.

Put another way, without doing at least something to portray your character the character is no more than a token on a game board. Just like the little dog.

There's a huge lattitude in "portray you character" that doesn't reach play-acting at all, which is my entire point. I don't have to express the character in acting to role play the character. And there's a range of this between a Monopoly pawn and a thespian.

Au contraire, mon ami. That's exactly when it becomes worth discussing: differences in table ideas.

I disagree, because at that point you're not disentangling the table differences from the game. You're here telling my I'm not even roleplaying if I don't meet your minimum threshold of play-acting at the table. This isn't even required by the rules of the game, but you're insisting that it is because the word "roleplaying" is involved, and you're adamant about your personal definition of what qualifies. The DMGs disagree with you, because they explicitly don't require these things, even though most of the give some lip service to the various ways it can work.

If we all played the same game and all played it RAW it'd get pretty boring around here, as there'd be little worth discussing at all.

Totally agree, but when I'm talking about how 5e works, it can't be with the assumptions at your table. It shouldn't be with the assumptions at mine. It should only be about how the rules work, until and unless I'm explicitly talking about how my table has changed or added to those.

 

[pemerton]

I want my characters fictional actions to cause fictional changes. I find it horrendous roleplaying that a game would expect a player to have his character "look for friends" when fictionally it's not going to be the cause of anything. Like why would my character ever do that? The answer is he wouldn't. Having your character "look for friends" isn't roleplaying IMO, it's just a smoke and mirrors trick to make invoking the mechanic sound like it's driven by playing your character.

Why would a character not look out for former comrades? Or upon returning to his ancestral estate, why would a character not look out for family members?

When I am travelling through the world I look out for people I know in places I might meet them. Why would fictional characters be different?

And the thought skitters across my mind every time your Evard's Tower example comes up: If going to Evard's Tower is so important to your character, why didn't you go there instead of the town?

I don't follow. In the BW game where I'm a player we have never visited a town. The action started on the south bank of the Jewel river, travelling among the old border forts and ruined homesteads. Aramina remembered the location of Evard's tower. We found it across the river.

 

[prabe]

I don't follow. In the BW game where I'm a player we have never visited a town. The action started on the south bank of the Jewel river, travelling among the old border forts and ruined homesteads. Aramina remembered the location of Evard's tower. We found it across the river.

Apologies: You don't follow it because my understanding of the situation was defective. I apparently conflated it with some other play example (not necessarily one of yours) that involved at least being in a town, if not arriving at one. Perhaps you can understand why it would bang off my consistency preferences given my misunderstanding.

 

[pemerton]

Apologies: You don't follow it because my understanding of the situation was defective. I apparently conflated it with some other play example (not necessarily one of yours) that involved at least being in a town, if not arriving at one. Perhaps you can understand why it would bang off my consistency preferences given my misunderstanding.

Understood.

You may be thinking of the BW game that I GM. In that game I narrated a sorcerer's tower, in the town the PCs were in, early on. I did this because one of the PCs had the Instinct If I fall, cast Falconskin and also had an Affiliation with a sorcerous cabal as well as a reputation as a minor illusionist. The top of a wizard's tower seemed a good place to fall from, though in the end I don't think that in itself quite happened.

I remember at the end of that session the player of that PC expressing his pleasure that in virtue of the PC he had built, I as GM had narrated the setting as containing such relevant things as a sorcerer's tower. I would consider this an actual play example of a player exercising agency in virtue of making suggestions to the GM which the ethos of the game obliged the GM to have regard to.

 

[pemerton]

Further on chance meetings: in LotR Gandalf tells the Council of Elrond how he was found by Radagast the Brown carrying a message to him from Saruman.

In BW that again could be the result of a Circles check. It could be a failed check: hence the message is a trap. Alternatively, it could be successful, and the subsequent conflict between Gandalf and Saruman could be the result of failed social checks. As with many RPGs, BW can have multiple mechanical and play paths to much the same fiction.

In Cortex+ Heroic/MHRP, a player can spend a plot point (a modestly-limited player-side resource) to establish a Resource, which must be connected to a Specialty (roughly, a skill) and reflects the PC's access to useful stuff and useful people. In our Vikings Cortex+ game, when the PCs were negotiating in the steading of the Giant Chieftain, the player whose PC had Social Expert spent a point to (in the fiction) have his PC establish a rapport with a giant shaman who agreed with the PCs' arguments, and (at the table) to establish a d6 Giant Shaman Resource. He was able to add the bonus die to his pool, which meant that - in the fiction - the PC was able to persuade the Giant Chieftain.

That sort of thing hasn't happened yet in our LotR Cortex+ game, but in that game Gandalf's player could spend a point to establish a Resource based on his Lore or Arcana Mastery, which might be something like News from the White Council or even a chance meeting with Radagast the Brown. These would be rated at d8 (for Mastery rather than Expert) and could be added by the player to appropriate pools.

This is one way in which the play of Cortex+ Heroic can be a bit more "meta" than the play of (say) Burning Wheel. Spending the point to create the Resource doesn't depend on framing and resolving an action declaration by reference to the current fictional situation. It can be a bit more abstracted than that. (Cortex+ Heroic also has the action declaration pathway, but in mechanical terms that creates an Asset rather than a Resource, which is a different component of the dice pool.)

 

[hawkeyefan]

Does the background or bond approach allow for the possibility of Rufus being cowed and sullen and ultimately unwilling to help despite attempts to shame and bully him?

Nope. By the book, the background just gives you a slight social perk that’s more general than specific. The Bond can earn you Inspiration if you roleplay its importance to your character, which you can turn in at any time to have Advantage on a roll.

They’re meager as written.