D&D General What is player agency to you?

[Maxperson]

But the GM literally will know what you're doing because you have to tell them your intent and how you intend to make it happen...

No. You don't have to tell him that you intend to play him. You simply word your intent and the HOW to appeal to him.

How can you game someone by telling them specifically what you want and proposing (not simply declaring) an approach to make that happen?

By proposing an approach that is more likely to get you what you want because you know what the DM likes to hear.

I genuinely don't understand how it is possible to "game" someone when you're not only playing with your cards face-up, you're literally giving a specific explanation of your strategy.

See above. If any discretion is involved, ever, you can game that person making the decision. It can be easier or harder. It can get you a lot of advantage or only a little bit. But it can be done.

 

[Umbran]

If this meshes with what @pemerton @AbdulAlhazred @Campbell and others have been saying this feels like it should be very helpful to me in thinking through things. So, I'm just checking if it is.

I can't speak to every specific game, of course, so maybe this isn't something those individuals are speaking to. It is an element that I've seen confusing in some instances, though, and which might go unstated.

The difference between task resolution and conflict resolution can be a big deal in terms of how players and GMs approach a game.

 

[hawkeyefan]

No. That is something you would see in a game with a Casual GM. The type of GM with a backwards baseball cap and a bottle of Mt. Dew, who when they hear the player mention the 'necromancer', will then say "woooah, cool story bro, I'm tottaly going to use that".

I'm the GM with a massive plan.

I don't know what this nonsense is, nor why I and other posters have been moderated for far less. I don't really know what a "Casual GM" is, but I'm reasonably sure that I don't qualify, and I know several other posters in this conversation who don't, either.

I expect that at points in your gaming history, there have been people at your table who had better ideas than you did. Based on what you're saying here, it sounds like you'd either deny that, or else you'd stick to the lesser idea because it was yours rather than incorporate anything anyone else offers.

Well, something in a backstory is pre approved by me first before getting in the game. And in any case I have 100% creative control over everything. So, sure a player can put a "Super Duper Sword of All Dragon Slaying".....annnnddddd, I will say is a dragon bane sword that does a bit of extra damage.

And sure they can give me the name and bare bones of an NPC in their background "My characters dad is a rich merchant", but then I have full control over everything.

Right, so you don't want to yield control of the game content basically ever. That's perfectly fine as a preference, and if all participants know and accept it, then it's no harm no foul.

There are other folks who enjoy collaboration.

Even if you say it's silly....it would happen in silly games. Though also Cartoon games, Goofy games and Games that don't make sense. You can say it will never happen in your game....but there are hundreds of others where it can and will.

I said you were being silly. Your examples don't shed any light on the conversation.

Right, I get the idea that a player can never fail a roll and always gets what they want.

I mean, I don't know how you could possibly get that idea. I specifically talked about there being consequences on a failure.

Player wishes to find a healer to heal them for free....but oh, no, the healer is in jail. Bail is 10 gold. Yawn. Character pays the bail and gets their free healing. Exciting game play for some.

I mean, the parts you're criticizing here are the ones you came up with. I didn't mention a healer or free healing or a 10 GP bail.

These are the ideas you come up with that your players can't beat, huh?

It's the worst example I've ever seen.

I suppose that by default, it must be. Also, the best example.

A player can occasionally make a roll to 'do agency' under the massive restrictions of the vague rules, and the total control of the GM to do very, very, very slight, tiny and minor effects...under total control of the GM, sometimes "with a cost".

Then everyone says "wow, look at that Player Agency!"

People tend to only notice player agency when it's missing, I think. And likely only when they've already seen it.

A rule that can be used to oblige the GM to adjudicate for the players is an example. The Circles rule in Burning Wheel is such a rule. My familiarity to it is minimal as, from the BW family of games, I've only played Mouse Guard, and only a handful of times. But my understanding is that they work similarly, though I think it is more complex in BW.

These kinds of rules exist specifically so that it's not the GM deciding everything. That's the whole point. So you're fighting it tooth and nail and trying to caricaturize it and reduce it to absurdity... but as others have pointed out, there are plenty of rules in D&D and similar games that work following the same basic process. I don't know if you're failing to make that connection or if you're ignoring it, but either way, you don't seem to be managing to follow along.

My first post in this thread was that "Player agency is when a player gets to say what happens in the game" and though it's an imprecise definition (it probably could use something like "with the support of the rules"), I haven't seen anything said since that contradicts it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I can't answer your questions. I literally looked at Burning Wheel rules for the first time less than three hours ago.


Doesn't the transparency thing put the kibosh to it though? You can't pretend you want something you don't. You can't hide what you're looking for. The GM isn't being gamed because they literally KNOW what you're doing, and if you're "shopping around" for lower-difficulty stuff, they can see that. Kinda hard to exploit someone if they literally know what you're doing because it's completely public.

I don't even see a problem here, the player is simply looking at the options, wouldn't a prudent character do that? I mean, maybe in character the situation is instantly clear and various options are weighed in an instant, but it's a lot less easy to know at the table! Or maybe the character is wandering around town checking out the possible ways to proceed. Remember, the GM can introduce new fiction, there's no guarantee that you get infinite chances to fiddle around.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

But the GM literally will know what you're doing because you have to tell them your intent and how you intend to make it happen...

How can you game someone by telling them specifically what you want and proposing (not simply declaring) an approach to make that happen?

I genuinely don't understand how it is possible to "game" someone when you're not only playing with your cards face-up, you're literally giving a specific explanation of your strategy.

I think the subtext of this is that the player could be pursuing a hidden agenda. Frankly I don't think that's a real concern for 2 reasons. It's likely not to work, and it's degenerate bad faith play. It's no harder to do the same thing in trad play, so how is it a criticism of BW?

 

[pointofyou]

I think the subtext of this is that the player could be pursuing a hidden agenda. Frankly I don't think that's a real concern for 2 reasons. It's likely not to work, and it's degenerate bad faith play. It's no harder to do the same thing in trad play, so how is it a criticism of BW?

It's my understanding that the closest you can come to a "hidden agenda" in Burning Wheel or anything PbtA or FitD is by having character traits or beliefs you don't put on the character sheet so they never come up as stakes. Whether this is "degenerate bad faith play" is a thing I'll leave for people who prefer that style of play to answer but it doesn't seem horrible to me.

 

[pemerton]

It's my understanding that the closest you can come to a "hidden agenda" in Burning Wheel or anything PbtA or FitD is by having character traits or beliefs you don't put on the character sheet so they never come up as stakes. Whether this is "degenerate bad faith play" is a thing I'll leave for people who prefer that style of play to answer but it doesn't seem horrible to me.

The issue here is that if you are playing your character to traits or Beliefs that aren't on your sheet, you won't earn artha. And so your character will on the whole be less mechanically effective.

Also, play will be a bit more boring and muddled, as the GM won't be framing stuff with clarity in relation to what you as a player are aiming towards.

This is one reason why I asked, upthread, what the advantage is supposed to be of manipulating the GM in Burning Wheel. Like, how is boring, muddled play an advantage?

 

[pemerton]

I agree plausibility is technically required for circles - but in many of the examples I see for Circles - plausibility is such a minimum constraint that it might as well be non-existent.

I've given two examples in this thread, from Burning Wheel play: Thurgon (together with Aramina) meeting Friedrich, and Thurgon (together with Aramina) meeting Rufus.

I may also have mentioned a Torchbearer example: Fea-bella the Elven Dreamwalker reached out to her friend Glothfindel in her dreams, and realised that he had been captured by Megloss (mechanically, the player wanted to meet up with Glothfindel the ranger to help the PCs trek through the wilderness, but the Circles test failed and so I narrated the kidnapping instead).

Which of these do you have in mind as illustrating a constraint thatis "such a minimum . . . that it might as well be non-existent"?

Circles as far as I can tell doesn’t have plausibility factor into it in this way. You have the same starting chance for circles to succeed no matter whether it’s very likely or just kind of unlikely.

Have you ever played Burning Wheel? Read the rules? Even read my posts about it (I am the only poster in this thread who is discussing their actual play of this RPG.) Here is one about setting obstacles for Circles tests:

I am only speaking for Burning Wheel, as far as Circles is concerned. (Torchbearer also has Circles, but it is a different system which gives the player less agency than does BW - something I have noted multiple times upthread.)

There is a rule for establishing the obstacle. Everything else being equal, it is easier to meet a "generic" person than a person who is ready to give you resources for nothing. Likewise, it's easier to meet someone vaguely helpful as you're travelling along, than it is to have someone in the crowd ready to rescue you just as you are about to be executed.

Setting Obstacle level seems to reflect taking into account varying fictional plausibility levels. So appears the mechanics do take that into account for determining chances of success.

You don't say!

Does it require "radically transparent intent" in the book? I don't hold blog posts as binding.

How many posts of mine stating the "intent and task" rules have you read? And if you're worried I'm misquoting them, you can download them for free and read them yourself: Burning Wheel Gold: Hub and Spokes - Burning Wheel | Burning Wheel | DriveThruRPG.com

For example - you might circles a doctor or apothecary in the town nearest you for a healing potion. Very plausible (requires a few assumptions about healing potions in the fictional a world, but mostly plausible for a fantasy fictional setting).

However, you might instead circles a farmer for a healing potion. Less plausible but not totally implausible. Is that an acceptable circles check? I’d not, why not?

If farmers are in your Circles (ie you have a Peasant lifepath), then yes. The minimum obstacle would be Ob 4 (base 1, +3 Ob for "a specific disposition or detailed/rare knowledge") - in this case, what is specific/rare is that the farmer in question has a healing potion.

The obstacle will be higher if the PC hope to meet this farmer right here and now. I'm thinking of a counterpart to the scene in the film Ronin, where Jean Reno takes Robert De Niro to his friend's house, to perform surgery. In Burning Wheel, I could imagine a hard Ride test ("We had to be there yesterday!") and then a desperate Circles test ("Someone in the hamlet must have a healing potion stashed away - I hope they'll help us!").

I don't understand why this is supposed to make for bad RPGing.

Most notably - player can shop around till he gets better than normal chances, since players don’t have to commit till they know the odds and what the consequence will be.

Have you read or played Burning Wheel? This claim is false.

From p 248 of the Adventure Burner (which is reprinted in The Codex):

Once you've stated your intent and task, once your character is in motion and the obstacle has been presented, you're expected to roll the dice. Even if it's too hard! . . .

Any negotiation about the appropriateness of the action should be handled when you state your intent. Any questions about rules clarifications and obstacles should be handled before you get to the intent stage. . . . An obstacle isn't a physical thing. It's a metaphor. Once it's presented, you need to confront it!​

In other words, the rule is actually the opposite of what you've stated.

I've only read Burning Wheel not played it but if I remember right there's a strong presumption that the Circles check is about something important to the character and the GMs' principles include that they should direct play at things important to the characters.

Agreed. Though how directly they should relate seems to be up in the air?

How is it "up in the air"? I've quoted the rules text in this thread (probably from Revised, but the text in Gold and Gold Revised is mostly identical in words, and completely identical in spirit). Eg Revised pp 12-13:

players take on the roles of characters inspired by history and works of fantasy fiction. These characters are represented by a series of numbers, designating their abilities, and a list of player-determined priorities. . . . The conflicts of the characters aforementioned priorities create situations for the players to resolve, and resolving conflicts (and creating new ones) is what play is all about.​

I've even posted examples, like Thurgon and Aramina's meeting with Rufus!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

It's my understanding that the closest you can come to a "hidden agenda" in Burning Wheel or anything PbtA or FitD is by having character traits or beliefs you don't put on the character sheet so they never come up as stakes. Whether this is "degenerate bad faith play" is a thing I'll leave for people who prefer that style of play to answer but it doesn't seem horrible to me.

I don't think there's any need for a player to be fully explicit about their character concept. In BW a belief is a mechanical thing, so a hidden one lacks mechanical weight. The GM could also make it explicit I think. Maybe that requires agreement with the player. Bonds are the closest thing in DW, and if you want XP, you better declare them!

 

[pointofyou]

The issue here is that if you are playing your character to traits or Beliefs that aren't on your sheet, you won't earn artha. And so your character will on the whole be less mechanically effective.

Also, play will be a bit more boring and muddled, as the GM won't be framing stuff with clarity in relation to what you as a player are aiming towards.

This is one reason why I asked, upthread, what the advantage is supposed to be of manipulating the GM in Burning Wheel. Like, how is boring, muddled play an advantage?

I wouldn't say that boring muddled play is an advantage. My point was that you can put the things you think will be interesting to play toward or things you are willing to see as stakes on your sheet. The things you are willing to see as stakes. There may well be things about your character you don't think will make for interesting play or that you are not willing to see as stakes and you might not want to put those on your sheet. You might even be willing to accept some optimization penalties though these might be small if what you don't have on your sheet is unimportant enough or if what you don't want at stake is parallel to things you're willing to risk.