GM fiat - an illustration

I was picturing this more like a James Bond villain situation, where the mind flayer is just enjoying giving victims the chance to guess incorrectly (and you could slide the probability based on what you are shooting for here). So really this is just a roll, happening in the game itself, that will determine how the mind flayer acts towards the player (does it try to eat his brain or let him go)



No, it would play out as normal. So if the player guessed wrong, presumably the Mindflayer needs to make its attack. Where it might be an edge case is because the player is already strapped to the table, in some editions that might fall under a coup de grace rule (I can't recall off hand if it qualifies). But I think most likely the player would still have a chance, they would just be strapped to the table and need to figure out a way to attack (so if it is a spell caster he may have a sporting chance)

Ah my apologies I didn't realize you meant the mind flayer was literally holding a die in the game world...

I think in 5e the wording on that situation is pretty open to interpretation. Pretty sure that tied to a table makes you a helpless defender and so the outcome is not in doubt. It would have indeed been considered a coup de grace in some previous editions.
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Well, don't we need to step back and ask what is this play supposed to be about?

If the goal of play is to solve a puzzle (broadly construed), then player agency consists in having the opportunity to solve the puzzle. Given that the puzzle is presented and solved via the medium of a shared fiction, this is crosswords + figure skating. Map-and-key, with its attendant secret fictional positions, is a tried-and-true technique for this sort of play.

But it won't work if the players are choosing blind; or if the "solution" is so baroque that they may as well be; or if the solution requires pushing against strong social pressures (the quest-giver as villain is one generally terrible instance of this last thing).

Sure, agreed. Puzzles need to be solvable to be fun. Doesn't mean they always get solved though.

For the reasons given in the OP, I don't think that the Alarm spell is very well designed for puzzle-solving play. (At least outside of a very narrow dungeon-esque context.)

We disagree on that, but I am not sure it is worth arguing over anymore. To me many of your "fail cases" seemed rather tortured though.

But anyway, not all skilled-play-focused RPGing need be about puzzle-solving. And not all RPGing need be focused on skilled play. If the aspiration for player agency is something else, then secret fictional positioning might be toxic.

Of course. I have been saying many times that not everyone needs to care about the same things.
 

Like I have said many times, nothing against Edward’s personally. He seems nice enough interpersonally and I find his online videos entertaining, even if I disagree. But this has long been a style of play he simply doesn’t seem to recognize as valid, despite tons of people enjoying it regularly
I'm not sure what you mean. It sounded like he was pretty frustrated, at one point, but he has amply described his own extensive experience of such play.
 

Pre-establishment, if it's not adversarial in nature, won't impact agency. What happens after establishment, though, can absolutely affect agency. If the DM drives the players towards or away from pre-established thing, he's reducing or elimination agency.

Just curious, but why can't the Order of Nyx be introduced there? Does introduction have to happen outside of a potential conflict?
There could be 3 paths to the introduction of such fiction. It could be part of the setting, like in BitD the Bluecoats are canonically a faction. It could be GM prep, AW allows the GM to create threats, but their introduction into a scene requires some degree of telegraphing, or at least that they initially appear as a soft move by the GM. Finally a player might describe something in answer to a question, or as part of character background at the start of a campaign.
 

I don't know I have thought about this one a lot and I still think there is a difference in agency between these two situations:

Your PC is captured by a mind flayer and strapped to a table. The mind flayer says "I am going to roll a d20 and on a result of 20 I will eat your brain, but on any other result, I will release you"

Versus:

Your PC is captured by a mind flayer and strapped to a table. The mind flayer says "I am going to roll a d20 behind this GM screen that I got when I purchased Terrible Trouble at Tragidore. Pick a number. If it matches the result, I eat your brain. If you pick any other number I release you."

Obviously this isn't like having the agency a choice between three corridors with information before hand gives you. But I still feel like the weight of my choice here, and my choice does matter. It means the difference between living and dying. And it is objective (the die is rolled and the result concealed). I am not saying this is an example of a character having full agency I just think there is a distinction between these two things
Correct. There is only a little bit of agency, but it is there. The player gets to decide the number and the result will have meaning, even if he doesn't know the meaning at the time.
 

I don't know I have thought about this one a lot and I still think there is a difference in agency between these two situations:

Your PC is captured by a mind flayer and strapped to a table. The mind flayer says "I am going to roll a d20 and on a result of 20 I will eat your brain, but on any other result, I will release you"

Versus:

Your PC is captured by a mind flayer and strapped to a table. The mind flayer says "I am going to roll a d20 behind this GM screen that I got when I purchased Terrible Trouble at Tragidore. Pick a number. If it matches the result, I eat your brain. If you pick any other number I release you."

Obviously this isn't like having the agency a choice between three corridors with information before hand gives you. But I still feel like the weight of my choice here, and my choice does matter. It means the difference between living and dying. And it is objective (the die is rolled and the result concealed). I am not saying this is an example of a character having full agency I just think there is a distinction between these two things
To me they're both just luck. That being said, @pemerton brought up a critical point. We have to understand how all of this fits into the goals of play. In general we can't really say much. I think we would all agree that saving throws in classic D&D are not instances of player agency. That doesn't make them bad or useless. Dungeon World has a "gates of death" move. The player simply throws the dice, 6- is curtains. It's pretty much a save, and serves the same purpose.
 

Ah my apologies I didn't realize you meant the mind flayer was literally holding a die in the game world...

I think in 5e the wording on that situation is pretty open to interpretation. Pretty sure that tied to a table makes you a helpless defender and so the outcome is not in doubt. It would have indeed been considered a coup de grace in some previous editions.
In 5e, paralyzed is the closest thing to being tied down. Attack rolls would have advantage against you and since the attacker is within 5 feet, it would automatically be a critical.
 

People use D&D for too many different things for one premise to really work I think. It has to straddle a wide range of playstyels and themes
Yeah, I admit to wanting to give it a pass, given that I've played it pretty much since the start of the hobby. OTOH other 'toolbox' systems always strike me as bland and rather dull for largely the same reason. I guess D&D is kind of rescued by its quirky genre as well. Like a lot of people play it specifically to experience that. This is not a strong premise, but it does work, obviously, for many. I've just come to want something beyond that.
 

Yeah, I admit to wanting to give it a pass, given that I've played it pretty much since the start of the hobby. OTOH other 'toolbox' systems always strike me as bland and rather dull for largely the same reason. I guess D&D is kind of rescued by its quirky genre as well. Like a lot of people play it specifically to experience that. This is not a strong premise, but it does work, obviously, for many. I've just come to want something beyond that.
For me this aspect of D&D is its strength. It has both broad appeal, making it easy to get players for and it can be many different things. I can use it to run a sandbox, dungeon crawls, mysteries, paths, epic adventures, city adventures, etc. it is easy to adjust to a groups preferences (at least I find it so). Another aspect of it is the core components basic set up work. Something about sitting down with a PHB, DMG and MM to flesh out an adventure/dungeon/map/etc just always feels approachable and smooth for me as a GM. I don’t get as much opportunity to play it though these days
 

Remove ads

Top