D&D General What is player agency to you?

[FrogReaver]

yes, it is much more abstract and less detailed, more telling a story than reenacting it. Or at least it looks that way to me predominantly… but @pemerton plays 4e that way, and that is as grid-based and detailed as it gets, at least for D&D, so it does not have to be like BitD

D&D traditionally splits combat out into it's own mini game. I think he still engages in the combat minigame of 4e when he plays it.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes, it seems to generate drama, which is not something I'm interested in using mechanical force to invoke.

Well, I think you would be if there were no costs associated with doing so?

 

[mamba]

It does. Let's take a locked door in a long abandoned ruin. I want to open it. That's my choice. If I'm playing with someone who just wants to find reasons to say yes, I can do any of the following.

I think you too narrowly define the result (door is open) so all choices are equal to you and nothing matters.

Let’s for the sake of the argument say that me watching on TV whatever I want is a guarantee, no chance of failure.

If you define the outcome as ‘he spent two hours watching TV’ then it really does not matter what I chose. I am looking for ‘he enjoyed watching the movie’ however, so it absolutely does, despite there being no chance of failure.

Leave it up to the player to decide what their goal was, don’t try to define it for them, then choices without chance of failure also matter

 

[FrogReaver]

yes, it lends itself more to abstract and less detailed play, more telling a story than reenacting it. Or at least it looks that way to me predominantly…

I don't think it's really about 'telling a story'. I don't think reenacting is a good comparison for any kind of RPG play.

In both cases it's about how the 'gaps' are filled. In D&D style play gaps aren't filled based on solely plausible, they are mostly filled with what's most plausible (with a few exceptions). In these games the gaps are filled by the player giving one plausible filling and the GM another (typically the negative). Dice are then used to determine which becomes the shared fiction. Since both DM and player choices must not only meet plausible but also be related to the currently established fiction then the game stays centered around known entities, NPC's, PC concerns that get further built as play progresses. That's where the Drama comes from.

*Note the player doesn't really say much outside their character - if they do it's to note something like i persaude NPC bob to help me by doing X (if you even consider that to be 'outside their character). That's the typical extent. A few exceptions I think get brought up in these threads but they definitely appear to be exceptions.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well, I think you would be if there were no costs associated with doing so?

What do you mean by no cost?

 

[Maxperson]

I think you too narrowly define the result (door is open) so all choices are equal to you and nothing matters.

Let’s for the sake of the argument say that me watching on TV whatever I want is a guarantee, no chance of failure.

Of you define the outcome as ‘he spent two hours watching TV’ then it really does not matter what I chose. I am looking for ‘he enjoyed watching the movie’ then it absolutely does, despite there being no chance of failure.

Leave it up to the player to decide what their goal was, don’t try to define it for them, then choices without chance of failure also matter

The activity was intended be one where failure has meaning as well as success has meaning, despite my choice to try and get through the locked door.

I think your example also works as another way to demonstrate it, but if everything or almost everything results in my getting through the locked door, then what does it really matter how I choose to do it?

Edit: @pemerton's method of "say yes" also deprives me of any chance of having to try say the rats head in the lock out of PC desperation because of prior failed attempts. That sort of adversity to overcome won't be present.

 

[FrogReaver]

What do you mean by no cost?

Say you could run D&D or whatever your preferred game without impacting anything else except also having more drama.

 

[mamba]

I don't think it's really about 'telling a story'. I don't think reenacting is a good comparison for any kind of RPG play

I was thinking of telling a story as in retelling an event, not as inventing it. So retelling an event and reenacting it.

Neither one is playing an RPG, but retelling comes closer to BitD from how you describe it and reenacting closer to D&D. Not the other way around. That is the point I was trying to make

 

[FrogReaver]

The activity was intended be one where failure has meaning as well as success has meaning, despite my choice to try and get through the locked door.

I think your example also works as another way to demonstrate it, but if everything or almost everything results in my getting through the locked door, then what does it really matter how I choose to do it?

Only if there was something at stake depending on how you chose.

Like if the yes choices yielded - you are through the door through the help of some other criminal organization and in return you will owe them a favor, which organization did you choose to help you? (for this example you have knowledge about these organizations and the kinds of things they might want you to do).

But if they player simply changed his query to i want through the door without help of a criminal organization... we are back to your list of options i guess and there's no stakes involved.

 

[FrogReaver]

I was thinking of telling a story as in retelling an event, not as inventing it. So retelling an event and reenacting it.

Neither one is playing an RPG, but retelling comes closer to BitD from how you describe it and reenacting closer to D&D. Not the other way around. That is the point I was trying to make

It really doesn't IMO. Which was my point.