D&D General Renamed Thread: "The Illusion of Agency"

[Swarmkeeper]

IMO you made the right call by making him roll, as there's always the chance the assassination doesn't go as intended - the target might randomly move at the last minute, the assassin might give away his presence unintentionally, the assassin's blade might catch on a buckle or unexpected piece of armour on the target, or whatever.

It should be an easy roll, sure, but he still has to make it.

No, I didn't make the right call by a long shot or it wouldn't still be haunting me.

This was a 5e game and the enemy was alone and sleeping. There was no uncertainty, therefore the dice roll was incorrectly called for. The PC was a capable adventurer whose whole schtick was being a stealthy and strong assassin. I took away the "awesome" and turned it into the "mundane". Sometimes the DM needs to just give the PCs the victory and move on to the next challenge.

 

[Minigiant]

We sometimes use dice rolls for social interaction because none of my players are professional actors and/or feel comfortable acting out certain scenes (eg, seduction, torture etc).

I’m curious about those of you who omit non-combat dice rolls. How do you handle character creation? Do you tell your players NOT to invest in Persuasion, Deception, Intimidation, Perception, History etc?

In other words, do you even use skills in your game? Why are you even playing D&D post 2e?

Edit: genuinely confused and curious.

Yeah that's kind of the biggest issue.

Pre2e had all the classes just be mostly combat chassis.

However everything after 2e kind of fall apart when you listen the number of non-combat rolls to there already precariously "balanced" systems as is.

3 4 and 5e all rely on additional unnecessary exploration and social roles just to function those aspects of the game.

 

[Bill Zebub]

IMO your whole premise is already fatally flawed at this point.

lol

 

[Jacob Lewis]

A lot of the issues described throughout this thread could be considered among the common pet peeves of many. These problems didn't manifest themselves, however, but emerged as natural responses for a system that often lacks any clear or decisive solutions, and generally accepted by the community through practice and repetition. Here's a few ideas.

1. When one character fails a check, they do not get to try again. A check doesn't equate to a single attempt, but a concentrated effort using every resource available to that character. This could mean minutes, seconds, hours or even days to produce a result. When the dice are rolled, it means all possible attempts have been compiled and factored in.

2. When another character wants to attempt the same check, the results of the last attempt should factor in. If the previous check failed, then the difficulty should increase. There are plenty of reasons to describe this as part of a narrative approach (fatigue, misinformation, details overlooked, etc). But simply put, it reinforces the idea that rolling the dice should have potential for rewards and consequences somehow.

3. Hidden details and buried treasure are really difficult to present in a game where every treasure or secret is only one die roll away. If the players are meant to have it, let them have it! But if they feel like they can't earn or discover anything without a dice roll,... well don't be surprised when they look for any chance to roll more dice! It's certainly a lot easier than trying to describe a situation or scenario that your GM may or may not interpret as a clever (or at least genuine) approach to claim the reward promised for playing the game.

That's all I got for now.

 

[Bill Zebub]

A lot of the issues described throughout this thread could be considered among the common pet peeves of many. These problems didn't manifest themselves, however, but emerged as natural responses for a system that often lacks any clear or decisive solutions, and generally accepted by the community through practice and repetition. Here's a few ideas.

1. When one character fails a check, they do not get to try again. A check doesn't equate to a single attempt, but a concentrated effort using every resource available to that character. This could mean minutes, seconds, hours or even days to produce a result. When the dice are rolled, it means all possible attempts have been compiled and factored in.

2. When another character wants to attempt the same check, the results of the last attempt should factor in. If the previous check failed, then the difficulty should increase. There are plenty of reasons to describe this as part of a narrative approach (fatigue, misinformation, details overlooked, etc). But simply put, it reinforces the idea that rolling the dice should have potential for rewards and consequences somehow.

I agree those are both workable rules to limit the effectiveness of "can-I-roll-too?"-ism, although without consequences of failure it still doesn't actually discourage it.

But...I still think find it a little artificial. In two ways:

• Rather than assuming "Do I know X?" equates to some kind of in-game effort, I would rather have the player narrate what that effort is, if there is any. Because sometimes it might just be "Do I know X?"
• It's still a kind of DM fiat for why characters can't make repeated attempts. I'd much prefer to let them make a cost-benefit analysis, (again) because of consequences of failure.

3. Hidden details and buried treasure are really difficult to present in a game where every treasure or secret is only one die roll away. If the players are meant to have it, let them have it! But if they feel like they can't earn or discover anything without a dice roll,... well don't be surprised when they look for any chance to roll more dice! It's certainly a lot easier than trying to describe a situation or scenario that your GM may or may not interpret as a clever (or at least genuine) approach to claim the reward promised for playing the game.

Yeah, that (the bold part) is how I feel about it.

And to your next comment: when I can think of a good way for them to genuinely 'earn' something by being clever, and using their character's strengths, then they actually feel like they earned it. That way I can sometimes (maybe even 'often') just let them have success, and they still feel good about their characters.

Expressed another way: genuinely earning a victory a fraction of the time is more rewarding (IMO) than having the 'illusion of agency' 100% of the time.

 

[Jacob Lewis]

I agree those are both workable rules to limit the effectiveness of "can-I-roll-too?"-ism, although without consequences of failure it still doesn't actually discourage it.

But...I still think find it a little artificial. In two ways:

• Rather than assuming "Do I know X?" equates to some kind of in-game effort, I would rather have the player narrate what that effort is, if there is any. Because sometimes it might just be "Do I know X?"
• It's still a kind of DM fiat for why characters can't make repeated attempts. I'd much prefer to let them make a cost-benefit analysis, (again) because of consequences of failure.

The system mechanics for D&D are nothing if not artificial. I try not to worry too much in explaining away or justifying this particular conceit for an engine that is built primarily on artificial constructs and resolutions. There are other systems out there that are designed to address these issues, rather than making it the GMs job to do so. But since we are speaking strictly within the confines of D&D as a system, we can choose to either accept it or challenge it. Personally, I think it's unnecessary to spend an inordinate amount of effort to focus on elements that the game (and the designers themselves) spent proportionately less time concerning themselves with.

Yeah, that (the bold part) is how I feel about it.

And to your next comment: when I can think of a good way for them to genuinely 'earn' something by being clever, and using their character's strengths, then they actually feel like they earned it. That way I can sometimes (maybe even 'often') just let them have success, and they still feel good about their characters.

Expressed another way: genuinely earning a victory a fraction of the time is more rewarding (IMO) than having the 'illusion of agency' 100% of the time.

This is largely a perspective of the GM. We seek ways to validate players to encourage them to play in ways that most likely suit our own preferences. And while some players might share that sentiment (usually the ones who most often feel they can 'earn' these rewards because of their innate cleverness, etc), others might expect that their efforts should be rewarded every time they do something clever, etc., and the GM is obliged to recognize such efforts with some form of compensation.

On the other hand, players who don't consider themselves to be outward, forward, or able to maintain focus during long sessions might feel something completely different. Their inability or natural tendency to remain quiet and observant in these games might feel they never get the same benefits as others who have fewer issues with expressing themselves, are more comfortable acting out, or pick up on every minute detail that the game and everyone at the table provides for them for hours at a stretch.

Given the options, a simple die roll seems much easier and less energetic than anything else that may be required of them. As far as they know, the potential rewards are identical.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The system mechanics for D&D are nothing if not artificial. I try not to worry too much in explaining away or justifying this particular conceit for an engine that is built primarily on artificial constructs and resolutions. There are other systems out there that are designed to address these issues, rather than making it the GMs job to do so. But since we are speaking strictly within the confines of D&D as a system, we can choose to either accept it or challenge it. Personally, I think it's unnecessary to spend an inordinate amount of effort to focus on elements that the game (and the designers themselves) spent proportionately less time concerning themselves with.

I probably chose the wrong word with "artificial". Sure, it's always artificial to turn the complexity of real life into game mechanics.

What I really meant was whether it's "real" agency or "illusory" agency.

To cite an example, in The One Ring's (1e) rules for Journeys, there is a very flavorful, Tolkien-esque subsystem for resolving mid-Journey events. Players each take a role (Hunter, Guide, Look-Out, etc.) and then use those skills to overcome the challenges.

But...they aren't really "using" those skills or making decisions. The GM ("LM") rolls dice to determine the nature of the challenge and which of those roles it targets, and then one of the players assigned to that role makes a skill check, and on a failure that character suffers the designated penalty. There's no "here's the situation, what do you want to do about it?" It's just "You have to make a skill check or lose 2 Endurance." There is absolutely zero problem-solving or decision-making. It's...well...board-gamey. (Unsurprising, since the designer made his name designing board games.).

That's what I call "illusory" agency.

This is largely a perspective of the GM. We seek ways to validate players to encourage them to play in ways that most likely suit our own preferences. And while some players might share that sentiment (usually the ones who most often feel they can 'earn' these rewards because of their innate cleverness, etc), others might expect that their efforts should be rewarded every time they do something clever, etc., and the GM is obliged to recognize such efforts with some form of compensation.

On the other hand, players who don't consider themselves to be outward, forward, or able to maintain focus during long sessions might feel something completely different. Their inability or natural tendency to remain quiet and observant in these games might feel they never get the same benefits as others who have fewer issues with expressing themselves, are more comfortable acting out, or pick up on every minute detail that the game and everyone at the table provides for them for hours at a stretch.

Given the options, a simple die roll seems much easier and less energetic than anything else that may be required of them. As far as they know, the potential rewards are identical.

The part in bold may absolutely be true. I'm definitely not talking about roleplaying, or acting, or being convincing, and still all of the above may absolutely be true. It can be risky and scary to suggest ideas in front of a group.

And I would love to find ways to encourage those sorts of players to put themselves forward more and to share their ideas and be creative. To learn to be ok with that risk.

But I, personally, don't want to make the game more algorithmically dice-dependent to cater to that tendency.

(As a side note...and this is not directed at you because I genuinely don't remember what you've said on these other topics...it seems to me this is, in some ways, a matter of 'inclusivity'. I would be very curious to see a mapping correlating what various posters have said on this particular kind of inclusivity, compared to what they have said on other inclusivity topics: orc/drow descriptions, racial bonuses, safety cards, etc. It would be interesting to see if some people use an inclusivity argument in one context, but take a "if they can't hack it they should find a new game" stance on other topics.)

 

[Bill Zebub]

After bagging on TOR's lack of decision-making, let me cite an example of where I think TOR does things better than D&D does: armor.

In D&D the best armor you can get is...the best armor you can get. Magic items aside, everybody would wear plate armor if they could. The only actual trade-off is Disadvantage on a very narrow range of skills. So unless you care about your stealth ability, you want plate armor if you can get it. Since the choice is easy, the rules throw up barriers by making it expensive, and outright preventing some classes from using it (without investing heavily in Feats.). But when you do have a choice, there's no real choice: take the plate. (You are free to make an alternate choice based on roleplaying, but you are negatively impacting your character mechanically to do so.)

In TOR, as part of character creation you can pick whatever normal gear you want, at no cost, including armor. Yup, that's right: you can pick the most protective armor in the game from the get-go. No cost involved. But the trade-offs are pretty serious, for the most part relating to encumbrance and fatigue. I've written a bunch of software combat simulators of the TOR rules, and I can attest that there is no best answer because in some situations, against some adversaries, one armor type might be better, but in another situation another is better.

Personally I think that's brilliant.

It does two (related) things:

1. It makes the choice an actual decision, not a false decision. Real agency, not illusory agency.
2. That, in turn, means that you can more easily factor roleplaying into your choice (which might just mean it's how you want to picture your character)

I would say Dungeon World's weapon system (you do damage based on your class, not your weapon choice) only gets part of this right: you are free to choose whatever weapon you want for roleplaying reasons, but that choice won't actually have any impact on the game. TOR's armor does have an impact on the game...the choice matters, in ways you can predict...it's just that it's impossible to optimize that decision ahead of time.

Again, games are...or should be...about making real decisions with trade-offs that matter. If the answers are obvious, it's not really a game.

 

[payn]

I probably chose the wrong word with "artificial". Sure, it's always artificial to turn the complexity of real life into game mechanics.

What I really meant was whether it's "real" agency or "illusory" agency.

To cite an example, in The One Ring's (1e) rules for Journeys, there is a very flavorful, Tolkien-esque subsystem for resolving mid-Journey events. Players each take a role (Hunter, Guide, Look-Out, etc.) and then use those skills to overcome the challenges.

But...they aren't really "using" those skills or making decisions. The GM ("LM") rolls dice to determine the nature of the challenge and which of those roles it targets, and then one of the players assigned to that role makes a skill check, and on a failure that character suffers the designated penalty. There's no "here's the situation, what do you want to do about it?" It's just "You have to make a skill check or lose 2 Endurance." There is absolutely zero problem-solving or decision-making. It's...well...board-gamey. (Unsurprising, since the designer made his name designing board games.).

That's what I call "illusory" agency.

Great example I really understand what you mean by illusory agency now. I definitely lean into the problem solving aspect in my RPGs, however, Im not afraid to pull the trigger on the illusory either. A lot of it comes down to intent. I really dont care if the characters have enough food, water, and torches for the trip. Im perfectly ok abstracting or making that aspect of the game illusory as player and/or GM. If the situation is something of note and impact, then im going to get granular with the game and lean specifically into skills of the PCs and NPCs. It's interesting because its not routine, there is something happening here, beyond eating a meal or sleeping through the night without a random encounter.

I understand the idea is that there is a restoral of agency by getting rid of skill rolls in the social part of the game, but I think there is plenty of room to engage it without being illusory when it comes to agency.

The part in bold may absolutely be true. I'm definitely not talking about roleplaying, or acting, or being convincing, and still all of the above may absolutely be true. It can be risky and scary to suggest ideas in front of a group.

And I would love to find ways to encourage those sorts of players to put themselves forward more and to share their ideas and be creative. To learn to be ok with that risk.

But I, personally, don't want to make the game more algorithmically dice-dependent to cater to that tendency.

(As a side note...and this is not directed at you because I genuinely don't remember what you've said on these other topics...it seems to me this is, in some ways, a matter of 'inclusivity'. I would be very curious to see a mapping correlating what various posters have said on this particular kind of inclusivity, compared to what they have said on other inclusivity topics: orc/drow descriptions, racial bonuses, safety cards, etc. It would be interesting to see if some people use an inclusivity argument in one context, but take a "if they can't hack it they should find a new game" stance on other topics.)

I think the inclusive argument in this sense is more general. For example, there should be RPGs that lean into illusory agency because some players are more comfortable and/or enjoy it better. Though, not every RPG needs to include illusory elements in all or any aspects.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Great example I really understand what you mean by illusory agency now. I definitely lean into the problem solving aspect in my RPGs, however, Im not afraid to pull the trigger on the illusory either. A lot of it comes down to intent. I really dont care if the characters have enough food, water, and torches for the trip. Im perfectly ok abstracting or making that aspect of the game illusory as player and/or GM. If the situation is something of note and impact, then im going to get granular with the game and lean specifically into skills of the PCs and NPCs. It's interesting because its not routine, there is something happening here, beyond eating a meal or sleeping through the night without a random encounter.

Agree there, but also I think the issue is that in most games I see that's not an interesting decision. Except maybe at first level, it's just not a difficult decision (and only uses game time) to go to the store and buy provisions. The cost is a rounding error, and while encumbrance could be an issue, encumbrance systems are typically so...cumbersome...that that's not fun, either. So why spend time on it?

That said, in some situations I've seen it work.

I understand the idea is that there is a restoral of agency by getting rid of skill rolls in the social part of the game, but I think there is plenty of room to engage it without being illusory when it comes to agency.

I do want to reiterate that I'm not advocating getting rid of the skill rolls in social encounters, but rather only using them once a goal and approach has been declared, the cost of failure has been determined, and the player has made a real decision that the potential cost is worth the potential benefit. It's the, "Can I roll to see if I can persuade him?" "Sure, why not?" that I want to get rid of.

I think the inclusive argument in this sense is more general. For example, there should be RPGs that lean into illusory agency because some players are more comfortable and/or enjoy it better. Though, not every RPG needs to include illusory elements in all or any aspects.

I guess I would also argue two things:

1. The difference is a matter of approach, not mechanics. Which means that either approach can work with the same rules, and I don't you need to design for one or the other.
2. The difference comes in guidance on how to run the game, including examples and how adventures are written. I believe the approach I want to use is much, much harder to DM (which, really, is why I started the thread...hoping to get challenging scenarios that would force me to think through how to handle them). So I would like to see games that encourage/teach/support that style. And then in a sidebar it could be explained that some players need more scaffolding, with advice on how to use a simpler resolution to bring them into the game.