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

[bloodtide]

But if we are given a random chance to succeed, with no cost to failure, the message is "It really doesn't matter to the story whether or not you get the door open. It's fine either way."

How and I supposed to get excited about that, or be invested in the die roll?

I like the randomness. A character might just "do it". It is fine for a quick bypass, but it should not happen too often.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

You are not understanding it, then. Not sure exactly what the disconnect is. If you're genuinely interested in exploring it I'd love to engage. Let me know.

Yeah it might be just a misunderstanding. I'll elaborate.

When a player interacts with the world he can do it through describing things he wants to do. The GM can then decide whether or not it works, and if it can even be attempted.

Spells mostly bypass this procedure, so, for example, the players come to a ravine the wizard can just dimension door across, or make a force bridge or something.

Anyone without spells will have to negotiate for a solution with the GM.

 

[Bill Zebub]

This is the aspect of your initial post that sits most uncomfortably with me, and I've been watching the thread to see if the conversation would make it more palatable or at least understandable. Is it fair to rephrase this part of your view as "Uncertain outcome alone is not a good reason to use dice, and should be left to DM fiat."?

Because I think of all the times in my games where players have invoked chance at the behest of their skills for consequence-less questions, of their own volition. Not "Do I know trolls are weak to fire?" but more "How familiar am I with Neverwinter?" or "Can I make a calming tea with local flora at the campsite tonight?" to be used solely for flavor, not to gain any sort of advantage. These are situations I'm picturing where it's not a question of success, but merely of characterization and color. Would you advocate for the DM to just take ownership of that answer?

Good question and well phrased.

I don't think it's "bad wrong fun" to roll dice for these sorts of low-stakes, doesn't-really-make-a-big-difference-one-way-or-another kinds of questions. And I get that a lot of people are used to rolling for these things, so it seems like taking away some player agency, or at least taking it away from the dice and giving it to a human. So, really, if people enjoy playing that way, go for it.

I only see two real (if minor) downsides:

• In some ways I see it as a little bit lazy, albeit in a totally understandable way. And more for the DM than for the players. If you can just resolve questions with a roll of the dice, it kind of takes away from the incentive to think through, "Well, what ARE the stakes exactly? How can I make this more exciting?"
• And also I think it dilutes the potential for dice to always be an exciting moment. If you are used to rolling dice for a bunch of low stakes things, I personally believe it takes some of the edge away when you do really need to roll.

But, again, I'm really more advocating for finding more ways to put stakes on the table and ask players to make meaningful decisions (that is, those with risks). Certainly both approaches can coexist, but...as per those two reasons above...I think there is some value in trying to break some of the old habits.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I like the randomness. A character might just "do it". It is fine for a quick bypass, but it should not happen too often.

That's fine to like the randomness. I certainly played that way for years and years without questioning it.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Yeah it might be just a misunderstanding. I'll elaborate.

When a player interacts with the world he can do it through describing things he wants to do. The GM can then decide whether or not it works, and if it can even be attempted.

Spells mostly bypass this procedure, so, for example, the players come to a ravine the wizard can just dimension door across, or make a force bridge or something.

Anyone without spells will have to negotiate for a solution with the GM.

Ok I don't think I have an answer for that that will satisfy you. I don't really see it as a loss to one player because another player can cast a spell to solve a problem; that's a benefit for the whole group. Also spells are a finite resource.

Two more points:

• In general I don't really worry about "negotiating with the GM" or "mother may I" or whatever. I get some people are concerned about that, but for me what makes RPGs magical is having a GM who weaves that magic. I don't want a neutral arbiter of rules. So I trust my GMs to make arbitrary decisions for the good of the game, and I want my players to trust me in a similar way. But I recognize that not everybody feels that way, and my approach may not work for some of them.
• Besides, even if you do allow skills to be used to overcome obstacles without "negotiating with the "GM", that just means the spellcasters get skills AND spells, so they are still ahead. No?

 

[MichaelSomething]

You and your foe have reached an impasse. Your opponent suggests a game of wits to resolve it. They take two glasses of wine, show you an undetectable poison, and then hide the wine glasses for a moment. They then put the wine back on the table.

"The game of wits has begun. One of these glasses is poisoned. The game ends when you pick a glass. We then each drink our glass and find out who is right, and who is dead."

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

Ok I don't think I have an answer for that that will satisfy you. I don't really see it as a loss to one player because another player can cast a spell to solve a problem; that's a benefit for the whole group. Also spells are a finite resource.

Two more points:

• In general I don't really worry about "negotiating with the GM" or "mother may I" or whatever. I get some people are concerned about that, but for me what makes RPGs magical is having a GM who weaves that magic. I don't want a neutral arbiter of rules. So I trust my GMs to make arbitrary decisions for the good of the game, and I want my players to trust me in a similar way. But I recognize that not everybody feels that way, and my approach may not work for some of them.
• Besides, even if you do allow skills to be used to overcome obstacles without "negotiating with the "GM", that just means the spellcasters get skills AND spells, so they are still ahead. No?

Ultimately it makes martial characters even more incompetent than they already are.

Spells being a limited resource is irrelevant, because even limited supremacy beats unlimited incompetence.

I am happy you are happy with what you are doing, but I am also very happy that I am not actually playing in your game, and it's incomprehensible to me how this GM-style seems like a good idea. It's like FKR, but less consistent.

 

[Bill Zebub]

You and your foe have reached an impasse. Your opponent suggests a game of wits to resolve it. They take two glasses of wine, show you an undetectable poison, and then hide the wine glasses for a moment. They then put the wine back on the table.

"The game of wits has begun. One of these glasses is poisoned. The game ends when you pick a glass. We then each drink our glass and find out who is right, and who is dead."

Oh that's a good one. And a hard one. And maybe one where I just throw my hands up and say, "Ok, roll."

Alternately we could also turn it into a whole mini-game:

• Put twenty glasses on the table, each with a folded up piece of paper.
• Ten of the papers say 'poison' and 10 of them say 'no poison'. However....
• For each + that the player would get for the roll, one extra piece of paper says 'no poison'
• Let the player choose a glass.

It's still RNG, but now the player's brain is the random number generator.

Alternately, if the player wants to come up with a totally different strategy....such as the one in the case you are probably referring to...we could game that out.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Ultimately it makes martial characters even more incompetent than they already are.

Spells being a limited resource is irrelevant, because even limited supremacy beats unlimited incompetence.

I am happy you are happy with what you are doing, but I am also very happy that I am not actually playing in your game, and it's incomprehensible to me how this GM-style seems like a good idea. It's like FKR, but less consistent.

What is FKR?

And why do you think martial characters would be "incompetent"? To make it concrete for me, could you give me some example scenarios where you would see this happening?

(I get that there's a faction of D&D players....maybe the "linear warriors, quadratic wizards" gang...who think that martials get totally short changed in D&D and that wizards are too ridiculously powerful and flexible. And maybe that's true in the upper tiers, where I hardly ever play. But I've never seen anybody complain about it in person; only on these forums.)

 

[Lanefan]

Sure. I don't understand what the value of that is, but....sure.

Yeah, again I don't get why anybody would want to spend precious game time thinking about that, but ok. We all have our preferences.

If there's a locked door in front of you-as-character and you've no idea what's behind it, you've also no idea whether you really need to risk whatever hazards might be present in order to open it or not. That's the feeling I'm trying to preserve.