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

[payn]

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.

Thats fine, I guess I prefer a hybrid approach where you start with problem solving and role playing and lead to a focal point that pushes the scene in one direction or another and continues to its natural conclusion.

I dont force players to go first person myself. I do want them to explain at least in third person what they are thinking and attempting. Im also a rare bird where social scenes are my preference and sessions going by with zero combats are some of my favorites.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I dont force players to go first person myself. I do want them to explain at least in third person what they are thinking and attempting. Im also a rare bird where social scenes are my preference and sessions going by with zero combats are some of my favorites.

That has me thinking about my own preference. Sometimes I really love the non-combat sessions, and sometimes they really drag.

And I think the difference is whether or not there are clear challenges with clear choices about how to overcome them.

I read a book about script writing ("Save The Cat") that talks about how every scene needs to have a clear conflict to be resolved (with 'conflict' pretty broadly defined) and how at the end of each scene the protagonist needs to be either better or worse off, never the same.

I think the same is true in RPG sessions. When I don't know what we're doing, and we're all just wandering around talking to NPCs, with some vague goal to work toward but without any direction (a.k.a. "railroading") about how to go about that (or a DM that knows how to improvise so that whatever we do, it somehow moves us toward that goal)...then I'm bored and want to attack something.

And part of that is what happens when I talk to NPCs. If I try to Persuade or Deceive or get Insight, and there are no stakes, no risk, then that's boring, too. "Sure, I'll roll." Maybe the result is that we learn something about our goal, but it hasn't been exciting to get there because there hasn't really been any tension.

I mean, imagine if there were no downside to a failed attempt at picking pockets or shoplifting. If you just....failed.

 

[DEFCON 1]

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?

The thing that I'd say in regards to this statement of yours is that to me this is perfectly acceptable-- because the "decision" you put it isn't choosing to make the check rather than not making the check (as you quite rightly put it-- why wouldn't anyone not make the check if they could?)... but rather the actual "decision" is coming up with the idea to try and persuade the person in the first place. The player has to see the situation in the story, see what they are being kept from based on the situation, and then try and figure out the best way for them and their character to resolve it and get what they want-- in this particular case you mentioned, "persuading" the NPC.

I don't think many times people give enough credit to the players actually coming up with the ideas they want to do, which to me is the real juice of the game. It seems like oftentimes in discussions like this we just jump right past the "coming up with the idea" part and go straight into the "how do we mechanically resolve it?" part, as though deciding on how the DM and players are meant to decide on the resolution statements or format are what actually matter. Which to me is backwards... the players making choices on how they wish to resolve situations-- narrative choices-- is really the more important part... not the mechanics used to resolve it.

Could a player "roleplay" a bit more to resolve a persuasion situation rather than just say "Can I make a Persuasion check?" Sure. And yeah, doing so might fit the "ambience" of the scene a little more... but sticking within the ambience is much less important in my opinion than them actually making the choice for what it is they want to do-- persuade the NPC (as opposed to any number of others things they could have chosen to do instead.) So how they express their decision and choice should not really be held to some kind of standard over and above just coming up with the idea.

Too often we do not give the players credit for thinking up the decision to persuade the person... we get hung up on how they choose to express that persuasion instead. To the game's detriment in my opinion.

 

[TiQuinn]

Too often we do not give the players credit for thinking up the decision to persuade the person... we get hung up on how they choose to express that persuasion instead. To the game's detriment in my opinion.

I guess there's something unsatisfying to me in someone saying they roll to persuade without saying how they are persuading them. It can be pretty much be anything, but for me, it has to be something. In fairness, that's not much different from saying "I make an attack", and no one expects anyone to describe the attack per se, but at least in that case, I know what weapon they're attacking with.

It's a double standard, I admit, but it's not one I think I can shake.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The thing that I'd say in regards to this statement of yours is that to me this is perfectly acceptable-- because the "decision" you put it isn't choosing to make the check rather than not making the check (as you quite rightly put it-- why wouldn't anyone not make the check if they could?)... but rather the actual "decision" is coming up with the idea to try and persuade the person in the first place. The player has to see the situation in the story, see what they are being kept from based on the situation, and then try and figure out the best way for them and their character to resolve it and get what they want-- in this particular case you mentioned, "persuading" the NPC.

I don't think many times people give enough credit to the players actually coming up with the ideas they want to do, which to me is the real juice of the game. It seems like oftentimes in discussions like this we just jump right past the "coming up with the idea" part and go straight into the "how do we mechanically resolve it?" part, as though deciding on how the DM and players are meant to decide on the resolution statements or format are what actually matter. Which to me is backwards... the players making choices on how they wish to resolve situations-- narrative choices-- is really the more important part... not the mechanics used to resolve it.

Could a player "roleplay" a bit more to resolve a persuasion situation rather than just say "Can I make a Persuasion check?" Sure. And yeah, doing so might fit the "ambience" of the scene a little more... but sticking within the ambience is much less important in my opinion than them actually making the choice for what it is they want to do-- persuade the NPC (as opposed to any number of others things they could have chosen to do instead.) So how they express their decision and choice should not really be held to some kind of standard over and above just coming up with the idea.

Too often we do not give the players credit for thinking up the decision to persuade the person... we get hung up on how they choose to express that persuasion instead. To the game's detriment in my opinion.

Oh, I definitely agree with all of this. And really that kind of creativity is what I'm trying to encourage at my table.

But I think there's a fundamental difference between a creative decision, and a risk:reward decision. The reason for being creative is to improve the risk:reward profile that the DM offers you (and requires trust in the DM's adjudication, of course). But then comes the decision of whether or not to actually risk the cost of failure. If there is no cost of failure, then there's no real decision...of the latter sort...to be made.

And while both can be described as 'decisions' they are really very different sorts of things.

The first sort...the creative decisions...are the essence of RPGs and what differentiates RPGs from other sorts of games. Traditional games put strict guardrails around what kinds of 'moves' you can make, but RPGs let you make literally any move.

The latter sort...the risk:reward go/no-go choice...is the essence of all games, and without those sorts of decisions I might go so far as to argue it's not even really a game.

EDIT: And I guess what I am trying to advocate, and get better at myself, is elegantly combining both kinds of decision-making.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I guess there's something unsatisfying to me in someone saying they roll to persuade without saying how they are persuading them. It can be pretty much be anything, but for me, it has to be something. In fairness, that's not much different from saying "I make an attack", and no one expects anyone to describe the attack per se, but at least in that case, I know what weapon they're attacking with.

It's a double standard, I admit, but it's not one I think I can shake.

I don't disagree with you at all... to me the real reason to play an RPG rather than a board game is to actually have a narration (either in-character first person or top-down third-person) of what the characters are doing. I do think staying within the "ambience" of a scene makes it more compelling and dramatic (and at least to me, more fun to play within).

But at the same time... the fact that the player actually comes up with an idea of what to do in the first place is really the important part-- not how they express that idea. So other players getting hung up on "You're not expressing your choices good enough!" is putting emphasis on the wrong part of the equation.

 

[payn]

I guess there's something unsatisfying to me in someone saying they roll to persuade without saying how they are persuading them. It can be pretty much be anything, but for me, it has to be something. In fairness, that's not much different from saying "I make an attack", and no one expects anyone to describe the attack per se, but at least in that case, I know what weapon they're attacking with.

It's a double standard, I admit, but it's not one I think I can shake.

I think it sums up to decisions that make an entire scene. Sure, "I attack" followed by a roll is simple but its usually preceded by a move, perhaps an ability, or casting a spell, or...etc. Combat is a lot of quick decisive choices that add up to an engaging combat scene.

On the flip side, "I persuade..." and roll a dice is taking all those decisions that add up to an enticing scene into a single roll that seems like fast forwarding through the entire movie scene. YMMV

 

[Bill Zebub]

I don't disagree with you at all... to me the real reason to play an RPG rather than a board game is to actually have a narration (either in-character first person or top-down third-person) of what the characters are doing. I do think staying within the "ambience" of a scene makes it more compelling and dramatic (and at least to me, more fun to play within).

Agreed. And it's interesting, as a thought experiment, to ask why adding such narration to a board game (whether it's Monopoly or Dungeon) achieves the same thing, and if not, why not?

My answer: no, it doesn't. And the reason is because that narration doesn't actually change the risk:reward profile. For all the flaws of allowing another human, a GM, to decide how that narration should affect the risk:reward profile, the resulting magic is totally worth the theoretical downsides.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Agreed. And it's interesting, as a thought experiment, to ask why adding such narration to a board game (whether it's Monopoly or Dungeon) achieves the same thing, and if not, why not?

My answer: no, it doesn't. And the reason is because that narration doesn't actually change the risk:reward profile. For all the flaws of allowing another human, a GM, to decide how that narration should affect the risk:reward profile, the resulting magic is totally worth the theoretical downsides.

True enough... but I'd also say the use of the word "risk" to me is a little unnecessarily harsh in this context. I don't think it has to be as hardline as "risk : reward", but rather simply "desire : achievement". Every character has wants and needs... and they all take actions to try and get those wants and needs. And that doesn't require any "risk" per se in getting those things (unless we're just saying the risk is the possibility of not being successful.) Other than just not getting what one wants, there never has to be some sort of physical, mental, or emotional risk. It's just what the character wants.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I think it sums up to decisions that make an entire scene. Sure, "I attack" followed by a roll is simple but its usually preceded by a move, perhaps an ability, or casting a spell, or...etc. Combat is a lot of quick decisive choices that add up to an engaging combat scene.

On the flip side, "I persuade..." and roll a dice is taking all those decisions that add up to an enticing scene into a single roll that seems like fast forwarding through the entire movie scene. YMMV

That is definitely the case that can come out of it. Combat has a built-in "movie scene" framework as a part of it that creates dramatic scenes, whereas the rest of the game can be sped past if one chooses to (or even unintentionally.) So it does require a little more work on the part of all the players to "flesh those scenes out" with more description and narration and dialogue and such. Other players might think the best way to do it is to just "add more mechanics" and make everything else in the game as mechanical intensive as combat is... but I think it's much simpler and ultimately more compelling if everyone just focuses on the narrative instead. D&D is a "talking" game... so never be afraid of adding to the conversation. And if you'd rather not do that... rather instead just sit there quietly and roll some dice when it comes to your turn... that's completely fine-- but we just have to hope that they others will do the talking for you. Otherwise it truly just devolves into a dice board game.