D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Pedantic]

Because the amount of agency we have as humans in RL isn't the upper limit on agency, obviously. An author has much more agency over the composition of their fictional world than I have over the composition of Earth.

Having agency comparable to what we have as humans on Earth is a choice to limit player agency to the lower to middle end of the possible amount of agency in a fictional game. No different than limiting player agency with a Duel of Wits in Burning Wheel. Compare/contrast with something like Nobilis or Chuubo's Marvelous Wish-Granting Engine for really high agency games.

I'm not so sure those belong on the same scale, given that seems a difference in kind, not quantity. A high agency character might wield disproportional personal power or influence, but still be limited to causally forward facing actions and a personal scope of action. Authors and characters don't really have comparable points of interaction with their respective worlds.

That being said, I'm down for power fantasy; if anything half the appeal of role-playing is having more options at my disposal than I general do as a person.

 

[zakael19]

That isnt; a limit on agency. Principe Apocrypha came up as did Old School Primer. If you read the old school primer, it is pretty clear the aim is to provide information that the characters would have. If you are doing that, then that is as much agency as you and I have in life. It isn't about being stingy with info. It is about basing information given on POV. Again, if players are making choices based on what their characters would know in the setting, how is that limiting agency in any way? Your definition of agency just feels way too expansive

Absolutely! Which is why the PA says to be extremely generous with information because a skilled adventurer who is moving in accordance with the system's expectation for cautious exploration is going to be taking in everything to the best they can. In most OSR-systems you're kinda a knave sort (dependent on character), so you should be looking at the fiction and giving them appropriate bits of information in a social scene so they can dig in. As I quoted from the PA previously, the idea is not to like "hide" information - it's to reward people being curious about the world. Give info to encourage digging, and if they dig give more info.

Landmark-Hidden-Secret, give them the landmarks so they know to look for Hidden info; and then always add in leads to Secret stuff if they take the time. I was just re-reading some reviews of Caves of Thracia, and it's full of exactly this sort of design: solid Landmark descriptions for players to anchor on, lots of Hidden stuff about the world/factions/environment if you take the time to move beyond a "roll the find secrets" procedure; and then so many Secret things with little tells waiting some player connection.

I'll just contrast that with all the "on a Perception/Insight/Vigilant/etc roll > X the..." crap that suffuses modern adventures. Can a "good" DM figure out better ways to deliver information? Yeah! But boy that design just encourages a lot of "welp, nothing happens."

 

[Maxperson]

That's fair. I remember this concept being a pretty big sticking point in a thread a year or two back.

I, personally, don't feel the weight of it; but I can recognize that some people view it as a potent distinction.

You keep saying that, but either 1) time is moving so fast for me now that it only feels like several months ago, 2) it was several months ago, or 3) there was another one several months ago.

I hope it's not number 1.

 

[The Firebird]

Do they need to break trust?

Because outright breaking trust with a single act is really quite hard. But doing something concerning? That's piss-easy.

And then to have your concerns met with some variation of:

1. Wow, I guess you just can't trust people, that must really suck for you
2. Don't you TRUST me, bro??? or
3. You should always trust everything the GM does, otherwise gaming is impossible

communicates that nobody is ever allowed, for any reason no matter how substantial, to ever feel concerned about anything, unless the DM so severely, so egregiously violates trust that the game is already over.

If you raise a concern with the GM and they are dismissive about it that is a cause for concern.

Except there are systems which make this quite doable. The assertion that it is utterly impossible is simply false.

I wasn't saying there are no systems that do this. I'm saying that you can't do it when the GM is responsible for running a fixed world like I've described. And I've argued that the fixed world approach has benefits that you can't get in other ways.

So why is it okay to have rules which tell you your character just dies, but not okay to have rules which (say) tell you your character thought they knew what they were doing better than they actually did? Both of those are entirely real-world events, and the latter is (thankfully!) much more common than the former.

Why is it okay to have rules which tell you your character flubbed their attempt to convince a shopkeeper to cut them a deal, but not okay to have rules which tell you your character flubbed their attempt to adhere to their (entirely mundane) oath against consuming intoxicants?

Why is it okay to have rules which tell you that your character's ability to tell if someone lied to them failed when they really needed it, but not okay to have rules which tell you that your character's courage failed when they really needed it?

All of these situations seem to follow the same exact logic, but the former is somehow acceptable because...it was what games did in the past, while the latter is unacceptable because past games didn't? I don't see why "when in Earth history this mechanic first appeared" makes any difference in the degree or nature of agency loss to these mechanics.

There seems a pretty clear distinction. Go back to the play loop: "the players describe how their characters act, the GM describes how the world responds". All your examples are breaking that line and saying "the system describes how the character acts, the GM describes how the world responds".

Likewise, death or a charm spell is something external that happens to your character. A lack of courage is something internal.

 

[SableWyvern]

Absolutely! Which is why the PA says to be extremely generous with information because a skilled adventurer who is moving in accordance with the system's expectation for cautious exploration is going to be taking in everything to the best they can. In most OSR-systems you're kinda a knave sort (dependent on character), so you should be looking at the fiction and giving them appropriate bits of information in a social scene so they can dig in. As I quoted from the PA previously, the idea is not to like "hide" information - it's to reward people being curious about the world. Give info to encourage digging, and if they dig give more info.

This is a good point. @hawkeyefan, it occurs to me that I should add to my previous response to you that, if I'm going to err in the amount of information I'm providing, I definitely aim for it to be too much, rather than too little.

 

[TwoSix]

You keep saying that, but either 1) time is moving so fast for me now that it only feels like several months ago, 2) it was several months ago, or 3) there was another one several months ago.

I hope it's not number 1.

I think it is number 1.

 

[The Firebird]

Right there with you. I may, or may not, develop my character's personality as I game. Kind of depends on what kind of concept I came up with and if I care one way or another. But this supposed introspection in games like BW? It's just die rolls. It doesn't "tell" me anything about my character, it just force dictates things about my character because someone authored rules about how this stuff works.

Want to emphasize this. It ties into a point I made before--adding mechanics to this kind of thing makes it so description has less weight. You add speed and predictable resolution, but it starts to limit you. Sometimes that is worth it, like in combat. Sometimes not.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Right back to the assumption of negative motivations of railroad or power fantasy. Remind me about how people don't claim DM's authority almost inevitably leads to railroads? Eh, never mind. A player having a power fantasy? Goodness gosh and golly! Heaven forbid someone with a mundane life and job pretend to be heroic now and then.

I'm not talking about negative motivations. I'm talking about what happens if we don't allow the unwanted to be possible in play. If the GM is making all decisions and the unwanted is not allowed to happen, then the GM is just telling the players a story. If the player is making all decisions and the unwanted never happens, then they're just playing out a power fantasy.

The unwanted result being possible is essential to meaningful play. Considering you go on in other posts about the possibility of failure being important, it seems odd that you're disagreeing with me here.

The players have as much information as the characters have uncovered or should know. We don't always make 100% informed decisions in real life, why would it change in a game? Besides, that would take a lot away from the game for me. That anxiety, and then having something work when it was just a shot in the dark? Amazing. Almost as good? Realizing you guessed wrong and dealing with the consequences. Sometimes it's fun to realize you f**** up in a game.

Sure. First, no one is saying that every decision in play needs to be 100% informed. This appeal to real life simply doesn't work because there isn't one person creating all the factors that may affect the decision a person is making. That's not how life works... but it is how RPGs work.

So, given that authority on the part of the GM, in order to facilitate functional play... meaning play of a game where players make informed decisions that can affect the outcome... the GM needs to facilitate that information.

When the players lack information to make a truly informed decision... is it their fault in some way? Perhaps they failed to scout a location or similar. Or is it the fault of the GM in some way? They chose to have hidden information impact the decision or similar.

People also don't always consciously control their reactions to things... yet you advocate for players to remain in control of the character's emotional state at all times. But you advocate for players to remain in control of their characters and how they react at all times. But that's not how it works in the real world.

So yeah... hiding behind "that's not how it works in real life" doesn't ring true. People are really cherry picking what kind of real-world cause and effect they observe and what they don't.

Always every time knowing the odds? Boring. Let me make guesses now and then, even if I'm wrong I feel like I'm trying to solve a puzzle or solve a mystery. The players will typically have some information when making big decisions especially on things like what plot hooks to pursue. But sometimes until you start climbing a cliff you don't know whether or not the rock will support your weight (I speak from experience here) and that's okay

Sure, this is true. And sometimes you do know. So the question is, if given the option between two equally plausible options, one that allows the player to make an informed decision and one that does not allow it... why would the GM select the one that doesn't allow an informed decision?

 

[zakael19]

This is a good point. @hawkeyefan, it occurs to me that I should add to my previous response to you that, if I'm going to err in the amount of information I'm providing, I definitely aim for it to be too much, rather than too little.

And I definitely think that for a lot of players, that sort of "figure out the details/mystery" so long as given sufficient starting position or information is a really enjoyable method of play. I can see viewing an entire sandbox map as a starting position for that, and trying to piece things together or being excited about what they can explore and discover.

I personally prefer a ruleset where the players are stating a goal of discovery and resolving the conflict in light of that overarching goal, but that's a moment to moment resolution choice.

 

[Maxperson]

But isn't it already the case that social/mental mechanics apply to PCs the same as NPCs? Both can lie to one another, using Deception vs Insight. There has been no huge wave of antagonism against this. Similarly with Intimidate; there are frequently mechanical consequences for failing to resist Intimidation, and (for example) a Battle Master Fighter NPC who uses Goading Attack or Menacing Attack on a PC unquestionably affects that PC's actions if the PC fails a Wisdom saving throw, even though all Battle Master maneuvers are perfectly mundane.

It's not already the case with social/mental mechanics that apply to PCs the same as NPCs. If an NPC is lying to the PC and the PC fails the insight check, the PC does not have to believe the NPC. On a failed insight roll he just can't tell if the PC is lying or telling the truth. The reverse is not true and if the NPC fails the insight check, he believes the PC.