Do Random Tables Reduce Player Agency?

[Lanefan]

Oh I get all of that. None of those system have you roll randomly for monsters after deciding to explore the bridge in the way described above. In terms of travel the roll would be made and an encounter result might begin the bridge scene, or a wandering monster roll might be made at some point during that scene if the players spend enough time. I'm not denying that people play like this, I'm just struggling to think of game were this process is the same as the one set out in the rules.

Did you miss that in the example the character checked the bridge (randomly empty at the time) then went away and came back two hours later, at which point the bridge (again randomly) had an enemy on it?

That things can change as in-game time passes isn't against any rules anywhere, I don't think.

 

[John R Davis]

It's doesn't take away if the choice they make has different consequences
Fast: party takes two days but are down on resources
Slow: party takes 4 days but are tip top. Unfortunately stuff at the destination has moved on

If the PCs are aware this is the option, it's all good. Plus let them roll the random dice for their choice

 

[aramis erak]

I am not sure if I understood you correctly, but arent you basically saying that the random table has nothing to do with player agency at all, because you can run a high agency game or a low agency game, but its not affected by use of random tables?

I can kind of see a sense to Blood Tide's response; player agency requires a GM enabling player agency.
But the point I can't agree with is that the tables restrict player agency, instead of GM agency.

AS a GM, I often am happy to reduce my own agency over the world unto some other designer's contribution, because it makes my time on prep work better, and often take me to places my own decisions would not take the players.

Their initial response was, from my point of view, much as Repeater, totally tangential.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Why, if he rolls twice for the more dangerous route for each roll on the less dangerous route? what is the effective difference?

Haven't read most of the thread, so maybe this was already covered.

Let's say the slow road takes 2 days with 3 encounter rolls each day. The fast road takes 1 day with 6 encounter rolls. Either way, 6 encounter rolls total.

That's still a meaningful choice. The players can take the slower road for a safer journey (max 3 encounters per day) or the fast road for a more dangerous one (max 6 encounters per day).

Admittedly, unless there are time pressures or other factors involved, it isn't a very interesting choice (the slow road is clearly the optimal choice). If (for example) the PCs need to stop the cultist ritual that happens in 3 days, then it becomes an interesting choice. The fast road gives them more time to stop the cultists, but they might be down some resources. If they're lucky or careful, they might not be down any resources).

I don't think that random tables inherently rob players of agency. They are arguably a form of illusionism, but a generally useful and accepted form thereof. The choice as presented in the OP isn't a particularly interesting one (absent the presence of other factors) because it's basically just a binary decision with one right answer, but that doesn't reduce the players' agency IMO. They're perfectly free to pick the wrong answer if they want to, for whatever reason, and they have the information to make that decision (fast but dangerous vs slow but safer).

 

[pemerton]

Huh? Wha?

From earlier today: I live in an apartment complex with a common laundry room in the basement. I went down to check if the machines were busy, and everything was quiet. I came back upstairs, picked up my laundry, and went back down. This took maybe three minutes, and in that time someone(s) else had taken all the machines. Bad luck for me, is all that was; and I've no right to complain that because the machines were empty three minutes ago they should still be empty now.

Things can change. What you see on the bridge now might very well not agree with what's there two hours from now, and this is in no way an affront to anyone's agency.

To me, this seems to show that you don't have control over who uses the laundry - which is to say, that is not an area of your life in respect of which you exercise a high degree of agency.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Does better (but not perfect) information give more ability to make meaningful choices?

I'm curious to see if there's anyone who doesn't think that answer to this question is obviously yes.

my answer to this is no, because, so long as the decision has meaningful consequences based on your choice and you have more than zero information about the nature of the options presented by that decision it is Meaningful, getting more information about the options allows you to pick a choice that more accurately aligns with your wants but it doesn't make the choice itself more meaningful, as it already had meaning because your choice mattered towards the specific consequences that resulted it can't have more meaning than it already did just because you learnt more about the choice you were making.

 

[Retros_x]

No. Like all randomness, random table take away player agency.

Take the example:

A player scouts the big bridge and the DM rolls for a random bridge encounter and gets 'none'. So the PC finds nothing on the bridge.

The player happily has their character go back to town, load up their wagon, and in a couple of game hours goes back to the bridge. The DM rolls another random bridge encounter and gets 'hill giant robber'. So the player looses their player agency by the random roll.

It's no different then a DM 'just saying' a troll is 'suddenly' on the bridge.

I am sorry, but your example has nothing to do with robbing or gaining player agency. First of all you just assume that the DM rolls again. A lot of DM would let the results of the scout count. But even if they don't and roll again, its so easy to justify if HOURS happen between the scouting and the actual travel. In fact it was a choice by the player to scout before being ready to travel. But none of that matter because its actually not the randomness that changes the encounter, its the DM changing the encounter. I can easily see how a DM does exactly the same with a pre-designed encounter, to change it based on the players decision to come back hours later. It has nothing to do with using random tables for this change or not.

Having a pre-designed route or having random encounters has no causal effect on player agency, how do you present it and what consequences players actions have, these are actually affecting player agency.

 

[Retros_x]

It seems like the argument is: either I have perfect knowledge of all possible consequences to all possible actions and can selectively choose which to engage with and which to avoid…or I don’t have agency as a player.

It’s a bollocks argument. But that’s what this all reads like.

Absolutely agree with you, the whole premise of the argument is kinda absurd.

 

[UngainlyTitan]

Haven't read most of the thread, so maybe this was already covered.

Let's say the slow road takes 2 days with 3 encounter rolls each day. The fast road takes 1 day with 6 encounter rolls. Either way, 6 encounter rolls total.

That's still a meaningful choice. The players can take the slower road for a safer journey (max 3 encounters per day) or the fast road for a more dangerous one (max 6 encounters per day).

Admittedly, unless there are time pressures or other factors involved, it isn't a very interesting choice (the slow road is clearly the optimal choice). If (for example) the PCs need to stop the cultist ritual that happens in 3 days, then it becomes an interesting choice. The fast road gives them more time to stop the cultists, but they might be down some resources. If they're lucky or careful, they might not be down any resources).

I don't think that random tables inherently rob players of agency. They are arguably a form of illusionism, but a generally useful and accepted form thereof. The choice as presented in the OP isn't a particularly interesting one (absent the presence of other factors) because it's basically just a binary decision with one right answer, but that doesn't reduce the players' agency IMO. They're perfectly free to pick the wrong answer if they want to, for whatever reason, and they have the information to make that decision (fast but dangerous vs slow but safer).

Since I was responding to someone else, this is pretty much the argument I was going to make if they repeated their initial claim.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I just wanted to say I have really enjoyed reading this discussion. The post was made based on the idlest of thoughts. Literally, as I was looking over Shadowdark in preparation for a game, I thought. "Huh, I wonder if random rolls for stuff has an impact on what we generally label player agency" and didn't think too much more deeply about it beyond what I wrote in the OP.

I agree largely with those that have said that the PCs can enhance their own agency by asking for more information (in character). I also like the idea of using frequency on the random encounter/event table to be a guide to answering "research" type questions.

Usually, if the PCs are going on a journey that will require multiple encounter/event rolls, once they set out I roll all the checks at once and tabulate the results, telling everyone to take 5. I can then present the journey in a fun and efficient way that feels "designed" but is still improvised and random.

Interesting, I've never heard of random encounters beings handled this way. The closest I've done was used random tables to help prep before game, but I usually just roll and use random encounters one at a time at the table. How do you handle it if the players pivot and change the plan?

For example, let's assume they take the fast road, but after 2 bandit encounters they decide the road is too heavily patrolled and decide to go back to the slow path (or maybe go off-road to try and find a shortcut). Do you take another break while you generate the encounters for the new area? What about the previous encounters? Let's say the shortcut doesn't work out and they return to the fast road. Do you reuse the existing encounters or roll new? If the shortcut works out but they decide on the return trip to take the fast road, would you roll new encounters or use the ones you already rolled? I'm honestly curious about how this works.