Do Random Tables Reduce Player Agency?

[FrogReaver]

This relates to @FrogReaver's point about time horizon, I think.

If the assumption, at the table, is that the PCs will only traverse these tunnels once, then the choice is as you say arbitrary. In my own play - of 4e D&D and Burning Wheel - in these sorts of situations I typically don't bother working with detailed maps and architecturally-specific action declarations. I use abstract resolution - eg a skill challenge in 4e - to determine whether the PCs get to the other end, and what happens (and what costs are incurred) along the way.

But if the assumption - as in classic dungeon-crawling play - is that the players will traverse the tunnels multiple times, then this is information gathering. And so while, on it's own, it is not all that agential (unless the players have some other information that motivates them to scope out to the left before scoping out to the right), it feeds into the agential dimensions of play. Again, for me Lewis Pulsipher is one of the best authors on this, in those 40-something year old essays.

On this we agree. And thanks for explaining it better than I initially did.

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't think those two things are equivalent, and I think the first is not sufficient for the second.

In almost any RPGing, a player action declaration for their PC will affect and change the game world. It means that the world now contains a character doing, or at least attempting, whatever the player declared. And often it will also prompt the GM to narrate something to the player about what happens - perhaps by reading from their notes, perhaps by extrapolating from their notes, perhaps by just making something up.

But if the player was just, in effect, offering blind prompts to the GM, then I don't think the player acted with much agency or made very meaningful choices.

For me the classic critique of blind prompts, from the perspective of player agency, is found in Lewis Pulsipher's essays in late-70s/early-80s White Dwarf. His focus was on what he called "lottery D&D" - where the players have their PCs draw from Decks of Many Things, pull levers, drink from wells in the dungeon, etc, and the GM reads from their notes or rolls on their chart to tell the players what happens. He contrasted this with what he called "wargame-style D&D", which is more or less Gygax/Moldvay-style dungeon-crawling, based around the players gathering information about a somewhat static GM-authored situation, and then acting in a planned, reasoned way on that information.

I think Pulsipher's critique of lottery D&D generalises to play where the flavour/colour of the play is less gonzo than drinking from a magic well, but the structure of play is the same. And a situation in which the players know that some indeterminate badness will happen if they don't get from A to B in time; that one path to B is short but dangerous; and that the the other path is longer but safer; has the underlying structure of "lottery D&D". The players have no real choice but to declare their PCs leave A for B; and they can either pull the "maybe this will help us" lever, of taking the short route, or they can leave the lever unpulled and find out what the GM's default narration is by taking the long route. It's all very colourful, and in some fashion it "affects and changes the game world", just like pulling levers in lottery D&D does; but the choices don't seem meaningful to me beyond being gambles. And I don't see much player agency.

I'm mostly with you here. I myself don't find the choice particularly agency granting. It just doesn't have much meaning to me, especially from a strategic or tactical perspective. Even if I knew the probabilities on the random encounter tables and how often that random encounter table would be rolled on - that still wouldn't really change the meaningfulness of the choice for me. I don't particularly find optimization problems to be about agency. They are just a kind of puzzle.

The one place I do find some agency is in how the decision characterizes my character/the party - assuming that's important to me. Are we the kind of adventurers who race against the clock, throwing caution to the wind so that we can try to effect change on the world, or are we a bunch of skilled mercenaries who place our safety first but still try to get the job done.

Those 2 PC/Party characterizations alone can make for a very different style of game - especially if the DM is willing to be adaptive to either. If one is looking for agency in this kind of choice then this is where I think it will be found.

 

[aramis erak]

I had a thought and couldn't find an appropriate existing thread.

Its a thought worthy of discussion...

What do you think?

I don't generally see GM-facing tables as having much, if any, agency loss to players. At least, no more than arbitrary GM choices already do.

Such tables, when prescribed by rules, to a GM like me, who is rules focused, do reduce GM agency quite a bit. When they''re optional in the rules, they're great for enhancing GM creativity in short uses; in long form play uses, they can get stale quickly. Worst bit? I'm sick of the corebook crits table in WFRP 1E... too often, soo few entries. The expanded ones from the HHP GM screen? MUCH better - they fit to different weapon types, and have the same number of entries, so it's less repetitive. Not much less, but enough. Plus, I won't be removing a PC's arm cleanly when using a staff...

Then there are situations like Classic Traveller or MegaTraveller, or 2300AD -- Where it provides table building rules, but not tables themselves, for wilderness encounters.

 

[aramis erak]

I legitimately don't understand the question.

"You have been told the forest route is faster but more dangerous, while the road is longer but safer."

"Okay. Huh. Why?"

"Why don't you guys make gather info checks."

And so on.

Have we ever expected players to have to know when they are allowed to ask questions? It doesn't seem like a problem I have ever encountered.

You're lucky. And probably haven't played with nearly as many different people as I have. (well over 200 counting one-shots and conventions.) The most common causes for scared to ask players are (1) Autism, (2) childhood abuse survivor, (3) first played with a toxic GM.

It does, however, make for a nice segue into one of the ways one can make the tables lead to more agency: Players can ask what's native to the area; the wilderness encounter tables, customized or not, can answer that question. Each person succeeding, tell them one entry on the table. But not which entry number, especially with the traditional 1dX+1dY tables. I've seen d6+d8, d6+d10, d6+d12, d8+d10, d8+d12, and d10+d12. I've occasionally used d4+d8 instead of 2d6... I love the flat spots in the center of even small tables, so I've also used d3+d6, d3+d4, d4+d5, d5+d10...

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

I'd say it depends. If the random table roll produces a result having a big enough effect on the game world such that the characters ought to have picked up warning signs before they started out, then it denies player agency to have that result take the players by surprise due to being rolled only after the characters were en route.

One flaw of random encounter tables (and other random tables) is that table designers feel tempted to put in massive wild variation in the possible results because extreme results are "cool." Good random tables are those where the designer held back from this temptation.

Another way random encounter tables might reduce player agency is by violating the game contract. If the game contract calls for encounters that are more or less tailored to the character's abilities and limitations, then it reduces player agency if a random roll on the table throws up a "this is not the game we signed up for" encounter.

But a random encounter table won't violate player agency if well designed; if it produces results that conform to the game contract, and if it avoids having extreme results that turn out to be "gotcha" surprises for the players.

 

[Retros_x]

If the PCs only have the barest information about potential difficulties -- thd fast road is "more dangerous" whatever that means-- are they being robbed of agency specifically as compared to a more carefully crafted route and potential dangers?

Let's assume that the description given to the PCs is equivalent, but yhe potential table roll results are much more varied from a challenge perspective than the designed routes.

What do you think?

I don't understand how that could affect player agency. Even if you carefully craft and design a route, you would not tell them beforehand right? You would just say "this route is more dangerous". And even if they have some meaning to get more information about the dangers ahead (scouting, divine magic) I would just roll on the spot and use the results to give them information.

Player agency is about making meaningful choices IMO, and saying "this route is shorter, but more dangerous" is providing a meaningful choice. If the route behind it is fully designed or just have higher chances for an encounter doesn't really change the choice.

 

[Umbran]

Procedures do nothing on their own, I find it really hard to envision a way that a procedure could deprive a player of agency. Some one has to apply that procedure ...

This reads to me like:
Me: "That fire will burn you if you put your hand in it, because it is hot."
You: "No, when you choose to put your hand in the fire, you burn yourself."

It sounds like you are trying to attach blame, while I am trying to discuss causes and effects.

I find the difference between "tool" (like the table or chart) and "procedure" (how we use that table or chart) to be material to the discussion.

I find the difference between "procedure, unapplied" and "procedure, applied" to be an unconstructive misdirection. That, in the end, only our decisions remove agency may be technically true, but is trivially so. That focus serves to direct our attention away from having understanding of the dynamics and impacts of the procedures we might choose and their results.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

This reads to me like:
Me: "That fire will burn you if you put your hand in it, because it is hot."
You: "No, when you choose to put your hand in the fire, you burn yourself."

It sounds like you are trying to attach blame, while I am trying to discuss causes and effects.

I find the difference between "tool" (like the table or chart) and "procedure" (how we use that table or chart) to be material to the discussion.

I find the difference between "procedure, unapplied" and "procedure, applied" to be an unconstructive misdirection. That, in the end, only our decisions remove agency may be technically true, but is trivially so. That focus serves to direct our attention away from having understanding of the dynamics and impacts of the procedures we might choose and their results.

I have really no idea what argument you are trying to construct on my observation regarding the original post.
The original post.

I had a thought and couldn't find an appropriate existing thread.

Does the use of random tables in play reduce player agency in gameplay? I am specifically talking about generative tables used to provide inspiration or even outright game elements to the GM when the PCs explore an otherwise undefined area.

Allow me to use an example: the PCs are heading from Southron to Northlund and can choose to take either the long but safe road or the faster but more dangerous road. Importantly, they don't know the mechanics behind those two road choices.

The rules (GM developed or otherwise) say that the chances of a negative encounter are double on the fast road -- but literally nothing else is defined before rolling.

If the PCs only have the barest information about potential difficulties -- thd fast road is "more dangerous" whatever that means-- are they being robbed of agency specifically as compared to a more carefully crafted route and potential dangers?

Let's assume that the description given to the PCs is equivalent, but yhe potential table roll results are much more varied from a challenge perspective than the designed routes.

What do you think?

The basic question as I understand it, is "Does random tables reduce player agency?" My response is no, at least not on its own. The example posited is the possibility of taking one of two roads, The long safer road and the shorter more dangerous road.
Using random tables to generate encounters for these roads will not in my opinion have any bearing on the players agency. And I am not blaming anyone for it either.
There may be other decisions regarding the process of using the random tables that the DM may choose that will negate the players agency but that is outside the scope of the OP and not an effect of using random tables.

 

[pemerton]

I'm mostly with you here. I myself don't find the choice particularly agency granting. It just doesn't have much meaning to me, especially from a strategic or tactical perspective. Even if I knew the probabilities on the random encounter tables and how often that random encounter table would be rolled on - that still wouldn't really change the meaningfulness of the choice for me. I don't particularly find optimization problems to be about agency. They are just a kind of puzzle.

I can find optimisation problems/puzzles quite interesting. But they're not a big part of my RPGing!

The one place I do find some agency is in how the decision characterizes my character/the party - assuming that's important to me. Are we the kind of adventurers who race against the clock, throwing caution to the wind so that we can try to effect change on the world, or are we a bunch of skilled mercenaries who place our safety first but still try to get the job done.

Those 2 PC/Party characterizations alone can make for a very different style of game - especially if the DM is willing to be adaptive to either. If one is looking for agency in this kind of choice then this is where I think it will be found.

For me, in my RPGing, play where the focus of player contribution is on the sort of characterisation you describe, is at the lower end of desired player agency.

That's not to deny that it's a thing.

 

[bloodtide]

Player agency is about making meaningful choices IMO, and saying "this route is shorter, but more dangerous" is providing a meaningful choice. If the route behind it is fully designed or just have higher chances for an encounter doesn't really change the choice.

A random table takes away from the Players Agency as it takes away the DMs Red Carpet.

In a high agency game, often with no random table use, the GM has the high duty of giving the players agency...by rolling out the red carpet to make sure the players agency happens. So when they players make an Official Choice of Player Agency, like the players pick the long, but safe road, then the GM alters game reality to make that happen. The GM says "oh well it's a long but safe travel" and nothing bad happens. The players are happy, the GM is happy, and the game rolls on. And in this game, even IF the GM uses the random encounter table and rolls a deadly encounter, the GM has the will and power to just ignore it. While in high service to the Players Agency, the GM is free to ignore any rolls, results or rules that might effect Player Agency.

In the low agency game, the GM does nothing to give the players any agency at all. So the players chocie is meangingless. And this is only taken to an exteme if a random table is used. As anyone who has ever rolled dice should know....you can roll any number anytime. So sure the "long road is safer" as it only has a "small chance" . But, escentually that is meaningless. Sure there is a "low chance" of an encounter happening, but it does not matter much in realty. The GM rolls, and gets a 20. So the deadly encounter happens on the "safe" path. And in lots of games, the GM is a powerless player and follows the results of rolls, results and rules even If they effect player agency. "sorry guys, the dragons of doom attack your characters on the 'safe path', damage is 100 each...again sorry, but the rules are forcing me to do this. Gotta play the game by the rules!"