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

[Jacob Lewis]

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.

I think it's important to understand what you and I mean when we use specific terms like "agency", especially when it gets used so often that many of us seem to think it means one thing while someone else uses it is thinking it means something else. So explaining that helps, and I, for one, appreciate that.

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.

TOR is a great example of how a system can handle key elements within the expected play of the game with concrete rules and mechanics to support it. Whether it's considered "gamey" or otherwise, most people will accept the constraints of a game system if it supports the kind of play experience they can enjoy. "Agency" should only extend the idea that a player's choices can have a significant influence in the outcome of the results. The "illusion" is not knowing if the results would have changed if they had done anything differently.

Also, I don't think it's helpful to disparage board games, video games, or any other games as somehow being inferior or less desirable. Many of us enjoy all sorts of games, and often see the individual merits for contrast and comparison.

 

[TiQuinn]

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.

I think the 5e skill system is fine when you just want something to get out of the way quickly, and have a simple resolution system. But if something is a focal point of the game, I prefer player problem solving or combat. I know not every player likes to do problem solving, or likes social interaction, but I think even then there's a better way than basic roll resolution. I'm totally fine with a player saying what he intends to say without acting it out or convincing me of their eloquence or sneakiness, for instance. Basically taking a third person POV, in other words.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think it's important to understand what you and I mean when we use specific terms like "agency", especially when it gets used so often that many of us seem to think it means one thing while someone else uses it is thinking it means something else. So explaining that helps, and I, for one, appreciate that.

TOR is a great example of how a system can handle key elements within the expected play of the game with concrete rules and mechanics to support it. Whether it's considered "gamey" or otherwise, most people will accept the constraints of a game system if it supports the kind of play experience they can enjoy. "Agency" should only extend the idea that a player's choices can have a significant influence in the outcome of the results. The "illusion" is not knowing if the results would have changed if they had done anything differently.

Ok, you have me pondering my use of the word "illusion". Because in that TOR exampleit's obvious that the player does not get to make decisions that affect the game world. There's no illusion.

The case of "Can I roll to persuade him?" is a bit different. The player is making a choice (to try to persuade) that, if successful, will change the game state. But the illusory part is that it's an actual decision: with no downside to failure, there's no trade-off and therefore no real decision. Of course you should try to persuade him! Why not?

So, yeah, terminology is tricky.

Also, I don't think it's helpful to disparage board games, video games, or any other games as somehow being inferior or less desirable. Many of us enjoy all sorts of games, and often see the individual merits for contrast and comparison.

I also enjoy board games. And while I agree it's easy for that to come across as disparagement, it shouldn't necessarily be taken as such.

But board games have a different feel and purpose than RPGs, so I do think it's a useful distinction. I love coffee, and I love tequila, and although "this tequila tastes like coffee" is not a compliment, it could be usefully descriptive.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I think the 5e skill system is fine when you just want something to get out of the way quickly, and have a simple resolution system. But if something is a focal point of the game, I prefer player problem solving or combat. I know not every player likes to do problem solving, or likes social interaction, but I think even then there's a better way than basic roll resolution. I'm totally fine with a player saying what he intends to say without acting it out or convincing me of their eloquence or sneakiness, for instance. Basically taking a third person POV, in other words.

A couple people in this thread say they play with people who are uncomfortable doing that. This has not been my experience. I've never played with somebody who didn't get more satisfaction from succeeding with a creative idea than they got from simply invoking a skill and rolling dice, but if other people say this is a thing I will believe them.

 

[payn]

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 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.

Agreed. When that comes up if im the GM I always follow up with, "persuade them about what?" I guess my approach is to pull them out of "roll mode", sometimes kicking and screaming.

1. 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 solved one recently, or at least I consider it solved in this view. Im curious your thoughts on how it went. Ill post the event below here.

Travellers in a sci-fi game have come about some stolen goods. The goods are electronically locked and need assistance of a hacker and fence to move them. Players understand this and are looking for a fence. One of the traveller contacts introduces them to such a fence. They get acquainted and then get down to business.

Travellers want the "friends and family" discount of 20% fee for moving fenced goods. The fence wants to start at the first time sellers mark up of 30% and see how it goes. Travellers try and persuade by mentioning their rep and potential for repeat business (Broker check) and are not successful. Fence recognizes their desire for the "friends and family" discount and offers them a counter proposal. He will allow them the "friends and family" 20% discount, but the Travellers will owe him the favor a crew with a ship can provide at some future date and time. Otherwise, its the 30%. Crew mulls it over and decides to roll the dice on the favor assuming it will be worth it over time and will likley lead to more adventure, albeit, adventure they are not privy to at the moment.

How would you have approached this scene?

 

[TiQuinn]

A couple people in this thread say they play with people who are uncomfortable doing that. This has not been my experience. I've never played with somebody who didn't get more satisfaction from succeeding with a creative idea than they got from simply invoking a skill and rolling dice, but if other people say this is a thing I will believe them.

In all honesty, I haven't seen this either, but if I did - I don't know that I'd be playing with them for long. That's a "no offense, but this might not be the table for you" if they're not into at least describing what they want to attempt to do.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Agreed. When that comes up if im the GM I always follow up with, "persuade them about what?" I guess my approach is to pull them out of "roll mode", sometimes kicking and screaming.

So, I solved one recently, or at least I consider it solved in this view. Im curious your thoughts on how it went. Ill post the event below here.

Travellers in a sci-fi game have come about some stolen goods. The goods are electronically locked and need assistance of a hacker and fence to move them. Players understand this and are looking for a fence. One of the traveller contacts introduces them to such a fence. They get acquainted and then get down to business.

Travellers want the "friends and family" discount of 20% fee for moving fenced goods. The fence wants to start at the first time sellers mark up of 30% and see how it goes. Travellers try and persuade by mentioning their rep and potential for repeat business (Broker check) and are not successful. Fence recognizes their desire for the "friends and family" discount and offers them a counter proposal. He will allow them the "friends and family" 20% discount, but the Travellers will owe him the favor a crew with a ship can provide at some future date and time. Otherwise, its the 30%. Crew mulls it over and decides to roll the dice on the favor assuming it will be worth it over time and will likley lead to more adventure, albeit, adventure they are not privy to at the moment.

How would you have approached this scene?

With the caveat that I haven't played Traveller in literally 40+ years so can't remember if it prescribes how to resolve this sort of siutation, the approach I would take is fairly simple:

The Referee factors in reputation, etc., and the Fence counters with, "Ok, I'll give you X% off (referee factors in the reputation) but I'll give you 2X% off if you owe me a favor..."

The players are free to decide whether they want to take the deal. (Which I love because they don't actually know what they are promising. I can totally hear Din Djarin pausing and saying, "Ok, fine."). Their reputation factors in either way.

Others may prefer the dice, but I genuinely don't see why rolling dice would be an improvement.

 

[Bill Zebub]

In all honesty, I haven't seen this either, but if I did - I don't know that I'd be playing with them for long. That's a "no offense, but this might not be the table for you" if they're not into at least describing what they want to attempt to do.

Yeah, me too.

I'll freely admit that I am happy to reflavor orcs if players are uncomfortable with the traditional portrayal (or really even just to have one less example of those stereotypes floating around our culture, even if all the players are fine with it.). I'm happy to put safety cards on the table, even though I don't think any of my players need them. Not only am I happy to get rid of gender and racial attribute modifiers for PC reasons, but I'm even happier to let players choose race/class combinations based on reasons other than optimization. Uncomfortable with acting? Fine, narrate in 3rd person. Chainmail bikinis? Gone (except in my own mind).

But not willing to try to solve problems without invoking a skill and rolling dice? Yeah, my table is probably not the place for you. Try @Lanefan.

 

[payn]

With the caveat that I haven't played Traveller in literally 40+ years so can't remember if it prescribes how to resolve this sort of siutation, the approach I would take is fairly simple:

The Referee factors in reputation, etc., and the Fence counters with, "Ok, I'll give you X% off (referee factors in the reputation) but I'll give you 2X% off if you owe me a favor..."

The players are free to decide whether they want to take the deal. (Which I love because they don't actually know what they are promising...). Their reputation factors in either way.

Others may prefer the dice, but I genuinely don't see why rolling dice would be an improvement.

I guess the dice roll was an attempt to convince the fence to give them the 20%, which he would have had it been successful. Instead, they still got the 20% but with a complication. They could still back out to 30% if that mystery was too spooky to them. The way it went down is they thought up the broker idea to try and persuade the fence, but I rolled with it and gave them interesting options. It wasnt simply, "I roll broker for the best deal..." This was an actual conversation and role play scene.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I guess the dice roll was an attempt to convince the fence to give them the 20%, which he would have had it been successful. Instead, they still got the 20% but with a complication. They could still back out to 30% if that mystery was too spooky to them. The way it went down is they thought up the broker idea to try and persuade the fence, but I rolled with it and gave them interesting options. It wasnt simply, "I roll broker for the best deal..." This was an actual conversation and role play scene.

The part I like about that is the failed roll allows partial success. Where it doesn't meet the criteria I aspire to (if don't always reach) is that even if the players knew the "cost of failure" beforehand there is no reason to not go forward with it, because they would be no worse off. Which is why I would just offer them the choice without requiring any rolls.

I don't always think this fast at the table, though, and I might have said, "Oh, um, ok, give me a roll..." and then tried to improvise a failure result. Like I said, I aspire to this model, but still suck at it.