D&D General What is player agency to you?

[mamba]

Okay, so a couple of things.
1. Deciding what number to pick in roulette isn't an uninformed choice. You know all the numbers and all the odds. That's as informed as you can get.

unless I am mistaken all the odds are the same… so saying ‘all the odds’ is a bit weird, unless you are thinking of e.g. betting on black rather than one number

It still is an uninformed choice because you do not have all the information that is relevant to your choice, ie which number will come up.
You could be Einstein and your choice still would be uninformed

Instead I want to point out
A) My pushback on your suggestion that I simply mean uninformed choice is due to 1 and 2. I don't simply mean uninformed choice.

it seems we are not just disagreeing about what ‘meaningful’ means but also what ‘uninformed’ means

Whenever someone is missing vital information, they are uninformed. The missing vital information for this choice is which number will win.

The odds aren’t helping with this choice at all… they are significant in the sense that they tell you that picking one number is as good as picking any other, unless you already know the outcome beforehand, because they all have the same chance of winning (and the same payout), but that is all they do.

If one number had significantly better odds or a significantly higher payout, that would help with choosing a number, but as it stands all you can figure out is that there is no preferred one

B) Do you understand the concept I'm invoking and just disagree with the words I use to describe it or do you not understand the concept I'm invoking? If you do understand then concept then what words would you use to describe it?

the word uninformed, that is why I am using it

 

[SteveC]

One of the most common things I used to see was the brand new/inexperienced GMs who believe that being a 'hard ass' is equivalent to good GMing. Some never learn better, lol.

This has been my experience as well. All too often they have a "this is how it's supposed to go," attitude combined with a lack of improvisational skill set. That's something you pick up over time. And agency improves as you realize that you're all in this together.

 

[Aldarc]

If they and DM want the world to explicitly revolve around the players. I don't.

The weird thing about this is that it kinda does in simulationist play as well. Some GMs who are heavy in this style of play have even talked in these forums about how as the players wander the setting, they (the GM) are simulating/generating the setting as the players interact with it.

 

[Oofta]

The weird thing about this is that it kinda does in simulationist play as well. Some GMs who are heavy in this style of play have even talked in these forums about how as the players wander the setting, they (the GM) are simulating/generating the setting as the players interact with it.

But there's also a lot of the world they don't interact with or choose not to pursue. The players in my current game decided not to go after some vampires so now there's a new threat. It doesn't have any consequence as of right now, but it may for future campaigns.

That's just one example, I do have notes about other things they could have pursued or what I think is happening in a region from a previous campaign just in case it matters. I don't go into a lot of detail, just broad outlines. But those broad outlines help me make what to me feels like a living breathing world.

That world doesn't revolve around the PCs, although the PCs can have a great deal of impact.

 

[Maxperson]

Yes, I’ve said that the ability should always work (absent a compelling reason for it not to). And having run games where the ability always works, I can say that the concerns expressed about it are imaginary.

Compelling = reasonable in my opinion. As for imaginary, it's an imaginary game! The concern that it should always work absent compelling reasons for it not to is imaginary as well!

You’ve said it. Look at the quote above. Look at your posts about this style of GMing being “railroading via success”. Look back over the thread you’ll see it all over the place.

Um, no. "Say yes or roll the dice" being a railroad for me is not even remotely the same as the ability being called in "I win button." So no, there has been no claim, implication, inference or anything else by me(or anyone else that I've seen in this thread) that it's some sort of unfair "I win button," but nice try. No, not really. It was rather an absurd statement to make about me.

 

[Maxperson]

Really? Meaningless in all RPG systems? And you know this how?

Because that's how it would be for me. Without the "no" being on the table for bad ideas, none of my ideas matter. Why bother trying to come up with good ones?

In a Cortex+ Fantasy Hack game that I GMed, the PCs had been teleported deep into a dungeon by a Crypt Thing. Mechanically, the doom pool had grown to include 2d12; I spent those dice to end the scene, and open a new scene with the PCs in an unknown dungeon room. I also declared that each of the PCs was subject to a Complication (d12 Lost in the Dungeon); and I narrated, among other things, strange runes on the walls of this room. One of the players declared that his PC read the runes to see if they provided clues as to a way out of the Dungeon; mechanically, he put together a pool of dice to try and eliminate his Lost in the Dungeon Complication. The roll succeeded, and so it was established that the runes did, indeed, provide such a clue. Had the roll failed, a different sort of consequence would have followed.

What I've just said, including an actual play example, shows that this is nonsense.

This question has been answered above, and will be further answered below.

You are assuming here that good choice vs mediocre choice is something that flows from the GM's decision-making about the fiction. But it needn't. Choices can be good and bad because of the way the system allows the player to build a dice pool (as in Burning Wheel, or Torchbearer, or Agon 2e, or MHRP/Cortex+ Heroic) or to adjust their dice roll (as in the choices made in a 4e skill challenge). They can also be good or bad in an aesthetic sense, in so far as they reveal or establish something about the character or the situation.

The example I just gave of reading the runes illustrates both possibilities. So does this example, from a 4e skill challenge:

Okay, but this isn't what I'm talking about. Clearly I'm talking about something that doesn't make a lot of sense for a given situation, not something that does. It was a general statement, and much like 5e, a specific example like you are describing above will often beat general.

I don't know what you mean by "fail forward" here. You're not using it in the way that those who coined the term (Ron Edwards, Luke Crane) used it.

Perhaps success with a cost might have been a better term.

And you know this how? In this thread I've provided multiple actual play examples, via links, quotes and retellings. Many illustrate adversity occurring. For instance, I posted an example of a PC, in Traveller, crawling through a tight space and tearing their protective suit in the process, thus being exposed to the world's corrosive atmosphere (mechanically, consecutive failed Vacc Suit throws). The PC then had to try and find a way into the enemy's installation before dying from the effects of the atmosphere. Where is this mooted lack of adversity?

Because the sort of adversity I'm talking about comes from failure, including "no." If you don't use those things, I'm not going to feel the same kind of adversity.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Because that's how it would be for me. Without the "no" being on the table for bad ideas, none of my ideas matter. Why bother trying to come up with good ones?

Okay, but this isn't what I'm talking about. Clearly I'm talking about something that doesn't make a lot of sense for a given situation, not something that does. It was a general statement, and much like 5e, a specific example like you are describing above will often beat general.

Perhaps success with a cost might have been a better term.

Because the sort of adversity I'm talking about comes from failure, including "no." If you don't use those things, I'm not going to feel the same kind of adversity.

sometimes you want an obstacle to slap you down with the hard 'no' and no-sell your attempts, because that gives meaning to your attempts that do succeed or you figuring out what you actually need to do to pass it.

 

[Oofta]

There's a big difference between there always being a way forward, even if it's in a different direction, and always saying yes or success at a cost. I do use success at a cost now and then if someone is close, but failing forward is not a guarantee.

I always have multiple options or worst case multiple goals. PCs don't succeed at everything they try, I wouldn't want to either.

 

[Old Fezziwig]

sometimes you want an obstacle to slap you down with the hard 'no' and no-sell your attempts

There's a big difference between there always being a way forward, even if it's in a different direction, and always saying yes or success at a cost.

I'm just popping in here to mention that, at least in Burning Wheel, the GM is not limited to yes or success with a cost. As written, the game says failure should lead to complications and be responsive to intent. Sometimes that will be failing forward in the ways that have been suggested, but it doesn't have to be. Flat negative results are discouraged but also not ruled out entirely. (It may be trickier to execute but I'm not convinced that the complications need to be immediate or linear, but this is a half formed idea that's coming to me when I should be working, so...). This may still be unsatisfying or undesirable, depending on what you want from play.

Edit: my half-formed ideas should mostly be kept quiet until fully-formed.

 

[Maxperson]

sometimes you want an obstacle to slap you down with the hard 'no' and no-sell your attempts, because that gives meaning to your attempts that do succeed or you figuring out what you actually need to do to pass it.

Yep. I want success to mean something more than just you succeeded.