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

[bloodtide]

I am trying to think of general reasons that a player might feel their character is useless, or even just 'not awesome'.

The biggest problem might be that many players only play the Character Sheet. They are stuck in the mechanical rules. The actions they can take in the game are limited to what is on the character sheet. A spellcaster gets all kinds of cool spells to cast that can do endless things all the time during the game. A barbarian they can rage...and do some other combat effects. So, this type of player just sits there, looking at their blank character sheet, that has no actions they can take outside of combat. The spellcaster can do spectacular things nearly all the time.

2nd, many players lack the skill to improvise beyond the character sheet. They can only think of the game in "official game rule action moves". Ask the player, "How does your character put out a camp fire" and they would answer "my character has no fire putting out skill". And even when they are told "your character can just toss dirt on the fire until it goes out" they won't get it and will be confused.

3rd is the over half of the above. Some players can think outside the rules.......but it utterly does not matter if the DM is not on the same page. A LOT of DMs outright refuse to allow any 'character actions' to have ANY effect on the game. All actions in the game must be Official Game Actions. A wizard casts the spell Grease and the goblins slip and fall. The barbarian spills a barrel of mundane grease and the DM just shrugs "you wasted your action as that has not game effect".

4th Many DMs, including most Casual and Improv DMs, don't put much effort into the setting background and set and scenery. So PC will be in "the woods" or "a warehouse". This does not give players anything to work with as the characters are just in a vague space. Put a barrel of nails in a room and some clever players will think to use it, but just say "whatever the warehouse room has normal warehouse stuff in it" does not give the PC any ideas.

5th the final bit is many DMs don't like the idea of characters doing actions 'for free'. That is to say they only want 'important' game actions to happen when a character expends a resource. Like a spell. The character has to 'use up' the spell, so the 'reward' is an effect. But a character using a skill does not expend the skill, so it has no effect.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

The biggest problem might be that many players only play the Character Sheet. They are stuck in the mechanical rules. The actions they can take in the game are limited to what is on the character sheet. A spellcaster gets all kinds of cool spells to cast that can do endless things all the time during the game. A barbarian they can rage...and do some other combat effects. So, this type of player just sits there, looking at their blank character sheet, that has no actions they can take outside of combat. The spellcaster can do spectacular things nearly all the time.

2nd, many players lack the skill to improvise beyond the character sheet. They can only think of the game in "official game rule action moves". Ask the player, "How does your character put out a camp fire" and they would answer "my character has no fire putting out skill". And even when they are told "your character can just toss dirt on the fire until it goes out" they won't get it and will be confused.

3rd is the over half of the above. Some players can think outside the rules.......but it utterly does not matter if the DM is not on the same page. A LOT of DMs outright refuse to allow any 'character actions' to have ANY effect on the game. All actions in the game must be Official Game Actions. A wizard casts the spell Grease and the goblins slip and fall. The barbarian spills a barrel of mundane grease and the DM just shrugs "you wasted your action as that has not game effect".

4th Many DMs, including most Casual and Improv DMs, don't put much effort into the setting background and set and scenery. So PC will be in "the woods" or "a warehouse". This does not give players anything to work with as the characters are just in a value space. Put a barrel of nails in a room and some clever players will think to use it, but just say "whatever the warehouse room has normal warehouse stuff in it" does not give the PC any ideas.

5th the final bit is many DMs don't like the idea of characters doing actions 'for free'. That is to say they only want 'important' game actions to happen when a character expends a resource. Like a spell. The character has to 'use up' the spell, so the 'reward' is an effect. But a character using a skill does not expend the skill, so it has no effect.

That's a great outline.

The bolded part is the GM equivalent of a player not being able to think outside of his character sheet.

 

[Bill Zebub]

The biggest problem might be that many players only play the Character Sheet. They are stuck in the mechanical rules. The actions they can take in the game are limited to what is on the character sheet. A spellcaster gets all kinds of cool spells to cast that can do endless things all the time during the game. A barbarian they can rage...and do some other combat effects. So, this type of player just sits there, looking at their blank character sheet, that has no actions they can take outside of combat. The spellcaster can do spectacular things nearly all the time.

2nd, many players lack the skill to improvise beyond the character sheet. They can only think of the game in "official game rule action moves". Ask the player, "How does your character put out a camp fire" and they would answer "my character has no fire putting out skill". And even when they are told "your character can just toss dirt on the fire until it goes out" they won't get it and will be confused.

3rd is the over half of the above. Some players can think outside the rules.......but it utterly does not matter if the DM is not on the same page. A LOT of DMs outright refuse to allow any 'character actions' to have ANY effect on the game. All actions in the game must be Official Game Actions. A wizard casts the spell Grease and the goblins slip and fall. The barbarian spills a barrel of mundane grease and the DM just shrugs "you wasted your action as that has not game effect".

4th Many DMs, including most Casual and Improv DMs, don't put much effort into the setting background and set and scenery. So PC will be in "the woods" or "a warehouse". This does not give players anything to work with as the characters are just in a vague space. Put a barrel of nails in a room and some clever players will think to use it, but just say "whatever the warehouse room has normal warehouse stuff in it" does not give the PC any ideas.

5th the final bit is many DMs don't like the idea of characters doing actions 'for free'. That is to say they only want 'important' game actions to happen when a character expends a resource. Like a spell. The character has to 'use up' the spell, so the 'reward' is an effect. But a character using a skill does not expend the skill, so it has no effect.

Yeah, I agree with all of this.

Which is why it was a little bit of a head-scratcher for me to be told that the approach I'm describing makes martials even worse. At my table, the abilities written on your character sheet don't matter as much as your ability to think up creative solutions. (And I can play that straight or whacky, depending on the mood of the table.)

I literally just finished a session with a group of kids. Two of them I had never played with before.

The first is super into D&D, and often DMs. At one point, early in the term, he said, "I'm going to cast Thaumaturgy and use a booming voice to threaten the goblins with their impending doom. Ok, that gives me Advantage on Intimidate and I roll a...."

"Hold on, hold on...don't roll anything yet," I said...

The second kid has played a few times, but really isn't very familiar with the game. When the chainmail clad zombie popped out of the sarcophagus (to the surprise of absolutely nobody) instead of attacking with his greataxe, he popped barbarian rage, yelled some challenge and described some kind of elbow slam pro wrestling move.

"Um, ok. You know your unarmed strike does a couple points of damage, and your axe will do 1d12 plus 3?"

"Yeah, I know but I want to knock him across the room."

Now, normally D&D is either an attack or a shove, but not both, right? But he didn't know that; he was just describing what he wants his character to do.

"Ok. How's this: you make a normal attack roll, and if you succeed you will do normal unarmed damage AND you will then make a contested strength check to knock it prone. You'll have advantage on that, because of your barbarian rage. BUT...if you miss the attack, you'll be one who is prone, and it will have advantage attacking you."

He happily took that deal, landed the attack, and was thrilled with the outcome.



Two very different approaches.

 

[Bill Zebub]

I'd argue that @Bill Zebub's methodology actually enhances the "usefulness" of all PCs outside of the combat pillar, regardless of class/subclass/abilities/whatever. But, I get it. That's not what this thread is about.

Back to the premise:

The party scout has returned to the party, who are hidden safely in the wood (frickin' Leomond's Tiny Hut!), to let them know there are two goblin guards outside the mouth of a cave in a clearing 1,000 feet to the north. The cave is at the base of a cliff that is 400 feet high. A third and fourth goblin have been passing by the mouth of the cave every 15 minutes or so, apparently on a predetermined lookout circuit. The scout couldn't hear the stationary guards clearly but did make out a few exasperated, exaggerated words in goblin: "hungry", "forever", "unfair".

The party needs to get into that cave, for reasons, and wants to be sure that anyone in the cave has no forewarning.

How might this play out?

Ok, finally getting back to this. Sorry for delay.

I realized I don't have a great answer, because we haven't even gotten to the point yet where there is some kind of declared action that could succeed or fail. I mean, there's so many things the players could do, right? They could try to quietly ambush the patrol to make the battle at the cave easier. They could try to sweet talk and bribe the guards. They could rappel down the cliff and go all commando. Anything.

But in thinking through various ideas I might propose as a player, I started thinking about: "And when does it all come to a head? When is the critical moment (or maybe multiple such moments) that determine whether my plan succeeds or fails?" Because that's where everything we're talking about really matters, right?

Because I personally don't want a bunch of low stakes dice rolls. If want to get to the good stuff, the moment of truth, when everybody holds their breath.

So that got me thinking about the poisoned cup scenario presented earlier, for which I had a few thoughts:

• In the Princess Bride, it's really the protagonist making the challenge and an NPC making the choice. And, really, the choice doesn't matter as much as that he just drinks one. So if we're literally reenacting that scene (and the PC really has built up an immunity to iocaine powder) then I would probably ask for some kind of slight-of-hand check, and on a failure the 'negotiation' goes south.
• But in the scenario described, as long as the player has a choice in whether or not to participate, and the death of their character is really on the line, then that's about as dramatic of a die roll as I can imagine, and if the player is game to try I'm game to let him. But, still, I think I'd want to put actual glasses on the table and him the player pick. As long as it's going to be a moment of high drama, why not bring it to life a little?

 

[zakael19]

Yeah, I agree with all of this.

Which is why it was a little bit of a head-scratcher for me to be told that the approach I'm describing makes martials even worse. At my table, the abilities written on your character sheet don't matter as much as your ability to think up creative solutions. (And I can play that straight or whacky, depending on the mood of the table.)

I literally just finished a session with a group of kids. Two of them I had never played with before.

The first is super into D&D, and often DMs. At one point, early in the term, he said, "I'm going to cast Thaumaturgy and use a booming voice to threaten the goblins with their impending doom. Ok, that gives me Advantage on Intimidate and I roll a...."

"Hold on, hold on...don't roll anything yet," I said...

The second kid has played a few times, but really isn't very familiar with the game. When the chainmail clad zombie popped out of the sarcophagus (to the surprise of absolutely nobody) instead of attacking with his greataxe, he popped barbarian rage, yelled some challenge and described some kind of elbow slam pro wrestling move.

"Um, ok. You know your unarmed strike does a couple points of damage, and your axe will do 1d12 plus 3?"

"Yeah, I know but I want to knock him across the room."

Now, normally D&D is either an attack or a shove, but not both, right? But he didn't know that; he was just describing what he wants his character to do.

"Ok. How's this: you make a normal attack roll, and if you succeed you will do normal unarmed damage AND you will then make a contested strength check to knock it prone. You'll have advantage on that, because of your barbarian rage. BUT...if you miss the attack, you'll be one who is prone, and it will have advantage attacking you."

He happily took that deal, landed the attack, and was thrilled with the outcome.



Two very different approaches.

This is why many of us say that Dungeon World is what most people who haven't played D&D except their D&D to play out like.

Which is why it was a little bit of a head-scratcher for me to be told that the approach I'm describing makes martials even worse. At my table, the abilities written on your character sheet don't matter as much as your ability to think up creative solutions. (And I can play that straight or whacky, depending on the mood of the table.)

Ok, is this entire thread "Help Bill run his D&D game with less reliance on skills" or a more generalized question? Because yeah, cool, if you're super permissive and "yes, anding" your martials all the time that's great! But the repeated notes from folks have been "casters get to click a button on their sheet and force a reaction from the world [even if only a saving throw], but martials if you take away their skills need to look to the DM playing 'mother may I' for anything that's not 'I hit them with my axe.'"

 

[Bill Zebub]

Ok, is this entire thread "Help Bill run his D&D game with less reliance on skills" or a more generalized question? Because yeah, cool, if you're super permissive and "yes, anding" your martials all the time that's great! But the repeated notes from folks have been "casters get to click a button on their sheet and force a reaction from the world [even if only a saving throw], but martials if you take away their skills need to look to the DM playing 'mother may I' for anything that's not 'I hit them with my axe.'"

So...

1. Calling this style of play "Mother, May I?" is a denigration.
2. I don't really mind. I have a much thicker skin than that. However...
3. Because I know, because I have experience from both sides of the table, that it doesn't have to feel like that, and that DMs have the capacity to let all characters shine outside of combat, I conclude that others must feel differently because of the way that DMs run their games.
4. And I know that power hungry DMs are a thing, and DMs who protect their plots are a thing, and DMs who just don't know of other ways of running their games are a thing.
5. But when I suggest that this approach feels like "Mother, May I?" then it's the fault of the DM, I'm accused of denigrating DMs.

 

[MuhVerisimilitude]

Bill: I'm kinda curious what you think about systems like Blades in the Dark. They have a system where you only roll if there is a consequence for failure, otherwise you just accept that they succeed.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Ok, finally getting back to this. Sorry for delay.

I realized I don't have a great answer, because we haven't even gotten to the point yet where there is some kind of declared action that could succeed or fail. I mean, there's so many things the players could do, right? They could try to quietly ambush the patrol to make the battle at the cave easier. They could try to sweet talk and bribe the guards. They could rappel down the cliff and go all commando. Anything.

But in thinking through various ideas I might propose as a player, I started thinking about: "And when does it all come to a head? When is the critical moment (or maybe multiple such moments) that determine whether my plan succeeds or fails?" Because that's where everything we're talking about really matters, right?

Because I personally don't want a bunch of low stakes dice rolls. If want to get to the good stuff, the moment of truth, when everybody holds their breath.

So that got me thinking about the poisoned cup scenario presented earlier, for which I had a few thoughts:

• In the Princess Bride, it's really the protagonist making the challenge and an NPC making the choice. And, really, the choice doesn't matter as much as that he just drinks one. So if we're literally reenacting that scene (and the PC really has built up an immunity to iocaine powder) then I would probably ask for some kind of slight-of-hand check, and on a failure the 'negotiation' goes south.
• But in the scenario described, as long as the player has a choice in whether or not to participate, and the death of their character is really on the line, then that's about as dramatic of a die roll as I can imagine, and if the player is game to try I'm game to let him. But, still, I think I'd want to put actual glasses on the table and him the player pick. As long as it's going to be a moment of high drama, why not bring it to life a little?

Ok, let’s go with the following possibilities:

1. The PCs want to take out all the goblin guards stealthily.

2. The PCs want to smooth talk their way past the two guards at the cave entrance.

I realize I’m still asking you to play the part of players and DM on these… if you want me to be more specific on the player angle in either/both scenarios, let me know.

 

[zakael19]

So...

1. Calling this style of play "Mother, May I?" is a denigration.
2. I don't really mind. I have a much thicker skin than that. However...
3. Because I know, because I have experience from both sides of the table, that it doesn't have to feel like that, and that DMs have the capacity to let all characters shine outside of combat, I conclude that others must feel differently because of the way that DMs run their games.
4. And I know that power hungry DMs are a thing, and DMs who protect their plots are a thing, and DMs who just don't know of other ways of running their games are a thing.
5. But when I suggest that this approach feels like "Mother, May I?" then it's the fault of the DM, I'm accused of denigrating DMs.

So I want to be clear here: "mother may I" is like, a formal categorization of rule / ability interaction. If the rules governing an interaction require the DM to thumbs up its use, it's categorically "mother may I." WOTC designers have used it repeatedly in how they talk about certain mechanics! I can't be denigrating something that the literal designers of the game have used to talk about tradeoffs.

Edit, to quote Crawford (23:32): "mother may I mechanics are something that is on your character sheet that only works if the DM cooperates with you in its execution."

Moving away from sheet mechanics to conflict resolution models with no rules whatsoever is moving the entire interaction method into "mother may I" realm. Arguably this is what OSR lives on, they just call them "rulings" and presuppose impartiality on the GM's side.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Ok, let’s go with the following possibilities:

1. The PCs want to take out all the goblin guards stealthily.

2. The PCs want to smooth talk their way past the two guards at the cave entrance.

I realize I’m still asking you to play the part of players and DM on these… if you want me to be more specific on the player angle in either/both scenarios, let me know.

Yeah there are just so many different ways to go here. I don't feel like we're at the point where we can usually distinguish between different approaches.

FWIW, I do think "stealthy assassination" (also mentioned upthread) is a tricky thing in D&D, and RPGs in general. It's a movie and video game trope that seems to be problematic to implement in roleplaying games.