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

[hawkeyefan]

But this immediately shows some of the agency issues it raises. I am not saying there is anything wrong with this approach, or that it is going to interrupt everyone's sense of agency. But both these cases could definitely be perceived by players in a sandbox as thwarting their agency.

I can see how it may not be to their preference, but I don't really see how it affects their agency. Like, if they have some meta clue... a failed roll with no result that seems like they didn't notice something... they don't have to act on it. If they

The first one is the GM effectively telling the player what they think.

How so? I'm not following you here.

And the second one messes with it from two different places. On the one hand they know there is a secret door there but they can't act on that information. On the other hand, why can't they remain and keep trying?

Who cares if they know? They can't do anything about it. I tend to look at the roll that was made as indicative of all their efforts.

If they can just stick around and roll again and again, then I don't really see the point in making them roll in the first place.

I get this won't be an issue for lots of people. My point is just that, as with the mystery, more information isn't necessarily more agency, and in some cases, for some people, it is going to run counter to their sense of agency

Again, I can see how it may be counter to preference, but I don't agree it's counter to agency.

 

[SableWyvern]

Well sure, if your chosen play style centers on withheld information then clearly giving it is going to spoil things. But like, I'm not seeing the agency loss here so long as you said "my character searches around" or whatever. Does agency here to you require more than ideation in character? Like, if I as the GM am like "hey yeah, there's nothing here more to find." Does that to you reduce your agency as a player?

In the hypothetical, the player wants to actually solve the mystery in the same way their character would. Not merely play a character who solves a mystery, but actually work through the same steps to solve it, with the same perspective of events as the character has.

If you give the player the answer, or tell them the answer doesn't matter/can't be objectively solved using the information the GM will present, then you have removed their agency inasmuch as you're not allowing them to have the experience they want. And, as far as I can tell, player agency in this context, where it is different from character agency, only means (and can only mean), "the player's ability to do the things they, as a player, want to do".

 

[Faolyn]

For each move in Duel of Wits, the player must do the thing - "Speaking the Part." I mean, insofar as any game rule can force you to do things. And then you roll. Does that answer your question?

The point of the game is mechanize the back and forth of a verbal encounter, with each passage carrying weight both as character & in the mechanics. The roleplaying is directly fused with the outcome you desire, the same way your words typed out in this forum are fused with some sort of outcome in your head.

@pemerton correct me if I've misunderstood the rules.

Yes, and it's good that you were actually willing to answer this.

 

[SableWyvern]

Who cares if they know?

If the player enjoys the style of play being discussed, where the aim is to withhold this type information, then one would assume the players themselves care. And I don't understand why you talk about how player agency is so important, but refuse to consider that the players, in this case, might not want to have to deal with non-character information.

 

[zakael19]

In the hypothetical, the player wants to actually solve the mystery in the same way their character would. Not merely play a character who solves a mystery, but actually work through the same steps to solve it, with the same perspective of events as the character has.

If you give the player the answer, or tell them the answer doesn't matter/can't be objectively solved using the information the GM will present, then you have removed their agency inasmuch as you're not allowing them to have the experience they want. And, as far as I can tell, player agency in this context, where it is different from character agency, only means (and can only mean), "the player's ability to do the things they, as a player, want to do".

I'm not sure we're talking about giving the player stuff without them doing anything, more the opposite? Like, using the meta channel to go "there's nothing to find here." Although this will probably depend on ruleset and stuff too, right? Like, if we're playing CoC or DG with the widely defined skills that have both auto-succeed and roll settings I think it's pretty flat - you either get info with a skill use or dont. But like, playing OSR dungeon crawling with puzzles or whatever, a Find Hidden skill use (Forget what it's actually called) is just "you used up a 10m dungeon turn and didn't find anything, now what?" and you can still opt to declare "I want to try and move that tapestry, surely there's something hiding there."

 

[Bedrockgames]

Well sure, if your chosen play style centers on withheld information then clearly giving it is going to spoil things. But like, I'm not seeing the agency loss here so long as you said "my character searches around" or whatever. Does agency here to you require more than ideation in character? Like, if I as the GM am like "hey yeah, there's nothing here more to find." Does that to you reduce your agency as a player?

I was just referencing the mystery argument to make my point about more information not leading to more agency. Like I said we debated it endlessly, so I am not up for a new round on that particular dispute. But the basic point is it is disruptive to agency because it impacts your ability to make meaningful choices in the context of a mystery you are trying to solve. In this style, the player is trying to solve the mystery 'as a piece on the board', they are trying to be Sherlock Holmes, not trying to play Sherlock Holmes. So if I walk into a room and the GM says, you discover a note in the cupboard addressed to the dead husband from his lover, that disrupted my ability to go in the room and look into the cupboard and find it with my own skill (how granular this is expected to be can vary from group to group). If the GM just hands me the mystery background, because he wants us to focus on the drama and action, rather than the mystery solving, that disrupts my whole ability to investigate a mystery. There are definitely big agency concerns here. I am not saying any GM who does this is automatically thwarting agency. It depends on the style of game. The point was simply, more information does not always translate into more agency. To bring it to an old school dungeon crawl, the point of that for some people is to explore that environment and have your skill as a player pitted against the dungeon. If the GM is giving me too much information, or information I wouldn't have from my vantage point in the dungeon, that can ruin my ability to make choices that have any meaning. Sometimes for agency to matter, I need to not know what lies beyond a door. Especially if choosing to open it is a matter of life and death. And my ability to approach it with more or less caution should matter. It should often make a difference if I charge in and open it with no regard, versus carefully inspecting the thing. And sometimes I expect to make choices with less information available.

That said, I am not saying be stingy with information. I am saying give them what is reasonable from their vantage in these types of scenarios. Too much or too little can both disrupt agency and the players ability to engage with their own skill

 

[hawkeyefan]

At that moment of time, no. But don't forget, for Strahd to charm someone, conditions have to be met. To whit, the PC has to be within range and Strahd has to be able to see them. And most of the time, the PC has chosen to put themselves in that location.

But we've been talking about a game where, at any time, a PC or the GM can decide that another character must make a Steel roll--even though the conditions that pemerton himself cited as being required were not actually met (which are surprise, fear, pain, and wonderment--not anger, a need for vengeance, or anything like that), and even though the PC had traits that logically should mean he wouldn't hesitate when committing murder. And pemerton said that it would be perfectly acceptable for a player or GM to decide that another character would have to make certain tests because that the player or GM, out of character, didn't want the other character to succeed on their goal.

Meaning that this game allows metagaming and GM fiat to remove player agency, as opposed to a D&D-style charm effect, which is supposed to be entirely done within the fiction of the game.

But isn't the player of BW doing the same thing? They've chosen to have certain traits called into question. Am I brave enough to face my fear? Am I hard enough to kill someone? That kind of thing.

If that's what play is meant to be about, and the player knows that the answer can be yes or no... that it will depend on the dice... then I don't think that it's really a removal of agency. This is something the player wants to see come up in play... even if it winds up not going the way he hopes it might.

I can absolutely understand how this may not be to everyone's liking, but I don't think it's problematic in any way regarding agency.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I can see how it may not be to their preference, but I don't really see how it affects their agency. Like, if they have some meta clue... a failed roll with no result that seems like they didn't notice something... they don't have to act on it. If they



How so? I'm not following you here.

I don't have any more time, but I will address this one point: because you said it was hunch. You gave them the information with the in setting justification that their character develops a hunch. For me, if I have agency, I should be able to develop my own hunches

 

[hawkeyefan]

If the player enjoys the style of play being discussed, where the aim is to withhold this type information, then one would assume the players themselves care. And I don't understand why you talk about how player agency is so important, but refuse to consider that the players, in this case, might not want to have to deal with non-character information.

The example that started this avenue of discussion was about a failed roll to notice a secret door.

I'm not saying to tell the players who the culprit of a mystery is. I'm saying that being cautious about such trivial meta-information is just a waste of time.

 

[SableWyvern]

I'm not sure we're talking about giving the player stuff without them doing anything, more the opposite? Like, using the meta channel to go "there's nothing to find here." Although this will probably depend on ruleset and stuff too, right? Like, if we're playing CoC or DG with the widely defined skills that have both auto-succeed and roll settings I think it's pretty flat - you either get info with a skill use or dont. But like, playing OSR dungeon crawling with puzzles or whatever, a Find Hidden skill use (Forget what it's actually called) is just "you used up a 10m dungeon turn and didn't find anything, now what?" and you can still opt to declare "I want to try and move that tapestry, surely there's something hiding there."

I'm not sure either, then.

I do know that, if my players are fixated on some meaningless minutiae and it looks like it's going to result in a lot of boring, frustrating, time wasting in the real world, that no one will enjoy, I'll certainly tell my players and find away to avoid that. I can only speak for myself, but I don't consider myself beholden to any rule that cannot ever be ignore, broken or changed if the circumstances require it.