An examination of player agency

[Bedrockgames]

Every game should have pooping rules.

I made pooping rules once for a sequel to a game I never published called Schlock. Schlock Number One was Burn: 10,000 Degrees of Terror. Schlock Number Two was It Came from the Sewers and rules such as this were essential to this installment

 

[pemerton]

Because I think you are wrong, from my perspective. I would not define railroad the way you do, but everything we're discussing here, like most things we talk about, is subjective and about personal preference.

But why, then, is it not OK for the OP to post what he believes about the topic? Why is that not just a case of "having a discussion"?

So you would expand the definition of a term which is almost always used negatively to include games that people enjoy and don't think are railroads? What is the purpose of that? Can't you just...not play a game you consider a railroad?

Because from my perspective those games are ones that I have no interest in playing, because they are railroads.

I suppose eating is more important, in more situations, then cleanliness?

This already tells me a lot about a RPG.

And if I tell my players their PCs need to eat, and there are no consequences for not doing so (no rules, you see), why should they do it?

Because they care about the integrity of the fiction?

Or, perhaps, because - in the absence of rules - you would assess ad hoc penalties for being wracked by hunger and thirst.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I take it you also have rules for sleeping, pooing, weapon sharpening, etc?

I do have rules for sleeping. Many games do. Pooing and weapon sharpening are referenced in my documents as taking place during appropriate times, like rest periods. Weapon maintenance is important. Equipment can get damaged in my game.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But why, then, is it not OK for the OP to post what he believes about the topic? Why is that not just a case of "having a discussion"?

Because from my perspective those games are ones that I have no interest in playing, because they are railroads.

This already tells me a lot about a RPG.

Because they care about the integrity of the fiction?

Or, perhaps, because - in the absence of rules - you would assess ad hoc penalties for being wracked by hunger and thirst.

Such ad hoc penalties would then become rules. That's how rulings work. Why not just use the rules I have instead of making up new ones?

 

[pemerton]

Such ad hoc penalties would then become rules. That's how rulings work.

I don't agree with this, as a generalisation.

It's how some rulings work.

But suppose you didn't assess ad hoc penalties. Do you not trust your players to be faithful to the fiction?

 

[zakael19]

I mean I of course chose to roll to resist a thing, but I rolled really badly and IIRC took five stress. And it was not "trivial" in a sense that the effect would have not been bad, it was physical harm, but it was not emotionally meaninful. The events after that however vey much were (and I wanted to resist the harm so I could get there) and it made perfect sense for my character to gain a trauma from that scene, not just at the exact moment the rules indicated.

The issue is that as resistance is the game's mechanic for avoiding basically any bad stuff and as the amount of stress you can potentially get from it is more than half of your stress track, it sorta creates situations where not every time you risk trauma by rolling is something super dramatic.



Oh, true! I hadn't noticed that. Yes, so the Deep Cuts approach is closer to how we handled it and I think that really fixes my issue with it as it does not require awkwardly writing the character out of the scene if it doesn't make sense

I feel vindicated, apparently Harper felt it was an issue as well, as it has been changed. (He also made stress from resisting to cap to three, which makes it way less swingy.) So yeah, I like the Deep Cuts version a lot more.



Right! And my expectations here are not particularly high. With death I'm fine with just some last words (and I would allow a PC in D&D 5e to say such even though by RAW they're unconscious) and with trauma I just wanted my character to do something dramatically stupid before storming off.



Well a flashback might require and action roll, which might have consequence and one might resit a consequence, roll badly , and somehow get trauma in the present where nothing happened...

Without wandering too much away: the changed Stress cost on Push Yourself in DC is because you’re likely facing a couple of threats in many conflicts, and can Push to reduce bad outcomes for both. So the costs wind up catching up probably. Threat Rolls are a conscious effort away from “do you succeed and what are the complications” to “here’s what you’ll get once you overcome the dangers,” and if you wrap all the systems in together give you a lot more space to get in deeep with the trouble (especially those heat calculations!).

Given that flashbacks are one of the defining bits of tech that really lets Blades do what it wants and give players the space to shape the score-world with retroactive declarations, I think that the text could have used even more emphasis on the 0-1 stress if it’s pretty plausible and straightforward with just a fortune roll.

 

[Jd Smith1]

I take it you also have rules for sleeping, pooing, weapon sharpening, etc?

My system does; not for pooping, but rest, eating, and maintenance are fully covered.

 

[AnotherGuy]

Resting, hunger and thirsting rules exist within 5e, as do cold and warmth.
But in terms of awaking from a noise/fire while sleeping, or noticing an uncleanly scent...etc one would, I'd imagine have to turn to the skill system for that.
The maintenance of weapons and equipment, spoilage of food, cleanliness would depend on table to table.

The Mending cantrip exists which presupposes that degradation of non-organic items occurs but the fact that the designers made the spell a cantrip reflects how little their own games focus on such things.
Similar things could be said about some of the other topics I mentioned above.

In our last session, the characters found themselves resting in an abandoned Temple of Bahamut high up in the cold windswept mountains. The player of the barbarian mentioned that he had a dire wolf pelt with him which meant that as a player he thought that the item should be of some benefit. I agreed with him.
Now in the base game, a rest (no matter if you are on the road) is treated as a Long Rest where a character recovers EVERTYHING within 8 hours. So, if I was playing the base game my choices are limited to:

• Penalise the rest of the characters for not having a dire wolf pelt or something of equal usefulness against the cold.
• Have the rest of the characters make a Constitution saving throw to see if they got a restful sleep and upon failure penalise them in some way.
• Have the barbarian wake up refreshed with a point of Inspiration.

In my game, thankfully we have homebrewed our rest rules, particularly for Travel Rests (regain 1/2 HD only) and I had imagined the Temple of Bahamut being a place of solace and reprieve but that was somewhat sheltered from the cold outside.
I however had not yet mentioned that it was sheltered from the cold and I didn't want to dismiss the player's input with the use of a mundane item working it into the fiction.
So, I decided not to mention that the temple provided shelter against the cold.
The characters are 15th level, they are experienced enough to make a fire and set their camp up to make best use of the building against the cold. I then rewarded the barbarian player with an extra HD (valuable in our game) for injecting the use of this mundane item working it into the fiction.

 

[Retros_x]

It's true that it's possible for players to not have agency, but only if the GM acts like a totally capricious demon. The rules don't prevent this, but GMs like that tend not to have players for long.

The one big agency every player always has is to not play and quit the game! Wait, I just got an idea for a new SAW movie...

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't agree with this, as a generalisation.

It's how some rulings work.

But suppose you didn't assess ad hoc penalties. Do you not trust your players to be faithful to the fiction?

Sometimes. But not having mechanical consequences to not eating is an opposing force to that, because the play doesn't change if they never eat. It's also rather unrealistic, which is important to me and to at least some of my players. Long-term survival as a play goal (which it often is in my games) feels pretty hollow if the PCs don't need to eat.