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

[zakael19]

No one needs me to rant about skill challenges again. I was going to go get some representative samples of my point to link to, but turn I ran into literally you and I having this same discussion:

Post in thread 'What makes an TTRPG a "Narrative Game" (Daggerheart Discussion)'

Apr 29, 2024

You can probably approximate some of that via deep GM thought and work, and you can grab the "soft moves" that PBTA leans on and use them in a 5e game too, but as soon as things go to player ideations, "moves" the differences separate out. Hacking in skill challenges from 4e helps, but the math doesn't work as well (expertise breaks it) and the 5e skills are just not set up for the breath of player actions. So then you're back to a player looking at the DM for permission.

I didn't want to derail this discussion, but there's a bit of an excluded middle between 5e's skill system and...

• Pedantic

• 

Below are some more times I lay it out if you care, but my point is the same as above. The choice is not between "DM makes up resolution mechanics" and "let's do an iterated 70%ish roll to determine what happens." The highest agency state is one where the player can make specific action calls that are better/worse at achieving the state they want than some other set of distinct actions. Skill challenges cut that off from the jump.

D&D General Post in thread 'New Interview with Rob Heinsoo About 4E'

May 24, 2024

You said it was gone. It wasn't. It works differently, I certainly grant you that...but you do realize that this was this way because you could use Diplomacy to manipulate others' behavior, right? Skills are very powerful in 4e. Much moreso than 3e. (It still baffles me that 5e uses skill rules more similar to 4e, but almost everyone runs them like the limited, weak 3e skill rules, where doing anything remotely useful has a sky-high DC or is impossible because no defined DC exists.)

And one example does not "lots of stuff" make. If dismissal because of lack of citations for...

• Pedantic

D&D General Post in thread 'Chris Perkins and Stan! - previous D&D edition thoughts'

Feb 7, 2025

The skill points are not alike, yes. But actually using the system? Far more like 3e than any other system--including 4e, the one that the rules actually did get more-or-less copied from. I have no idea why people choose to run 5e's system as if it were 3e. But they do, much to 5e's detriment. Its skill system, especially if they hadn't utterly jettisoned Skill Challenges, could've actually been good.

This is completely untrue. 5e's skill system looks nothing like 3e, setting aside the question of skill points entirely. 3e skill entries start with a...

• Pedantic

• 
• 

D&D (2024) Post in thread 'Should Bounded Accuracy apply to skill checks? Thoughts on an old Alexandrian article'

Nov 10, 2024

Let's also remember the real point of all of this-- these checks are not the game unto and of itself. Their entire point is to vary the speed in which players acquire narrative advancement in the story they are participating in.

The entire game is a story that is happening at the table. That's why every single mechanic in the game has a narrative description layered on top of it-- so the players can imagine an interesting meaning for what these numbers represent that we are adding together all the time. A player rolling a twenty-sided die and then adding two numbers to it to...

• Pedantic

• 

Ah, I have read my responses to you from then as well and realized again we’re in such a fundamentally different paradigm it’s not worth spilling digital ink further.

 

[robertsconley]

So this looks like the summary I asked for earlier.

What form the agency takes and how it works within the scope of the given game may be different... like, me dribbling and shooting in basketball is a different thing than moving my knight in chess... but they are both examples of player agency.

Sure, and the point I’ve been making is that player agency has two broad types: character agency and meta-agency. Both are components of player agency.

What I’m doing is distinguishing how different systems emphasize these two types to different degrees. More specifically, systems don’t just vary in how much agency they give players, they also vary in what kind of agency they grant. Each system combines its own mix of character and meta-agency to create a particular style of play.

The line between them comes down to this: character agency arises when the player is acting as their character, making decisions from within the fictional perspective. Meta-agency arises when the player is acting for their character, using tools or rules that influence outcomes or structure from outside that fictional frame. Within each of these categories are many variations, combined differently across systems.

The idea that your view is the standard is what makes me think that challenging that idea fits this thread. I'm saying I don't agree with that view. I don't think changing the definition of agency to fit only a subset of agency actually sheds light on play.

That’s not what I’m doing.

I’m not redefining player agency to fit only one kind. I’m analyzing it into parts: meta-agency and character agency. Player agency, as you describe it, still exists in my framework. I’m not replacing it, I’m breaking it down so we can understand what’s actually happening in different kinds of play.

I realize that RPGs function in different ways than other games, but all kinds of games function differently. We can still look at them and see how a player exercises agency in the game.

An RPG isn’t just the rulebook. It’s the system, the play culture, the referee’s procedures, the campaign structure, everything that shapes the actual experience. If you focus only on "the game" as a closed ruleset, you miss the bigger picture. That leads to shallow or misleading analysis.

It’s also why looking at RPGs purely as “games” in the conventional sense can obscure what’s really going on. Yes, some campaigns are run exactly like a game: players pretend to be characters, they have adventures, and everything flows from the mechanics. But not all campaigns are like that. In many cases, the rules are just one layer among others, important, but not the whole story.

How a player exercises agency is different from game to game, yes, but the definition of it does not.

Saying that player agency is composed of character agency plus meta-agency doesn’t redefine it in the way you’re suggesting. What you describe as player agency is still present, it just becomes easier to analyze and explain when we recognize what types of agency are being exercised and how they interact.

Think of it like chemistry. We used to understand matter in bulk, liquids, solids, gases. That worked fine. Then we discovered molecules and then atoms, and built out from there. Chemistry still exists and works as it did before. It just got clearer, more refined, and better connected to other fields.

That’s what I’m trying to do with player agency. Your model still holds up inside mine. I’m just showing what it’s built from.

 

[Faolyn]

This is why I say that you do not seem to understand how BW works.

You are talking about how likely something is based on some vision of the fiction. That is not what determines whether or not the dice are rolled in BW.

What determines whether dice are rolled is if (i) a player says that their PC does something, and (ii) the success or failure of that thing would matter to some player-determined priority for that PC.

Here, the player said that his PC does something - ie look for a vessel to catch the blood - and whether or not he finds one matters to whether or not he can catch the blood (because without a vessel, he can't catch the blood). It's that simple.

When I asked you if every single thing a player wants to do needs to be rolled for, you said no.

So which is it?

If every single declared action needs to be rolled for, well, I consider that a very bad rule.

The actual rules state "say yes or roll the dice." So why not "say yes" to the question of "do I see a cup?"

You may or may not like the rules - that's your prerogative - but it is a bit frustrating to have you continue to tell me that I applied them incorrectly. I have quite a bit of experience reading, playing and GMing this system. Whereas you seem to have none. So I don't really grasp your confidence in asserting how it is meant to work.

I didn't say you applied them incorrectly in BW. I have said that the rules in BW go against the rules in basically every other game out there, and not in a good or innovative way.

There are no "artificial constraints". But the PC was not carrying any vessels. He was planning to take the mage to the Naga intact - hence why he was hoping to get to the tower before the assassin did.

When I asked you why the PC wasn't carrying a waterskin, you said that PCs are ordinary people and don't carry adventuring gear.

That is an artificial restraint as waterskins are only peripherally adventuring gear--a D&D-style adventuring party may carry them, but so will perfectly average people during the day, since a lot of people engage in activities that make them thirsty. I can understand saying that a typical BW PC isn't going to carry a weapon or magic item on them, but a waterskin or wineskin?

@Lanefan you asked a few times why someone couldn't have a cup on their character sheet, especially if they knew that they would have to gather blood at some point soon. When you replied to him, you didn't answer him, but instead quoted some text that didn't address the actual issue. At some point, @SableWyvern replied, but said "I have no experience with BW, but this just sounds like a roundabout way of saying, "I don't want to play Burning Wheel, but if I did play anyway, I'd do it without buying into the premise and actively trying to subvert it."" To me that sounds like "it's not in the spirit of the game."

If you want to say that the player didn't think to be prepared by carrying a cup or vial around with them, then OK.

If you want to agree with SableWyvern and say it's not in the spirit of the game to be prepared, then it's an artificial constraint put there by the game to force drama in places where there doesn't need to be drama. Hence: Idiot Ball.

The assassin was in hand-to-hand combat with another PC. But there was something keeping the PC from catching the blood, namely, his lack of a vessel! That's why he looked around for one.

Again, the GM could have said yes instead of having them roll the dice.

EDIT:
It occurs to me that you are assuming that a failed test means a failed task. But it needn't. It means failed intent.

Let's suppose that the roll was 4 dice against Ob 1, so a 1 in 16 chance of failure. If the test fails, what is the correct narration?

Given that the PC is a shaman who summons spirits, and one of his domains for summoning is Sickbeds, and he has a Belief that To catch a thing, one must set the right bait, a possible narration of failure would be that he sees a vessel, but it is broken, having been knocked to the floor in the fighting that's taken place in the room. Bait him into trying to summon spirits to mend the vessel!

So he has time to summon a spirit, but not time to find an intact cup in a room that should have several. Gotcha.

You keep claiming that there was something at stake here, but I'm not seeing it--it still looks like you forced the roll to create cheap drama.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I haven't played DW I've just read some of the rules and looked at some actual play. But even if the GM creates some of the world, there are parts that are added by the players, correct? That would take me out of my character's perspective. May not be an issue for you, it is for me.

Well, maybe some custom moves aside, the GM 'says' the fiction. Some moves like Discern Realities or Spout Lore constrain the GM in terms of the nature of their authoring, and may compel them to say something, but never exactly what.

Players do get authority over their bonds, which could contain a bit of fiction, but those are a sentence, no more. Beyond that, the GM asks questions and they're supposed to do this a lot, and the answers are meant to be used. In a functional DW game these questions will illuminate and flesh out the character's fictional context and provide the GM with material to build on.

Sometimes players action declarations might also imply certain facts. The rest of the table could certainly call someone on something like that. It would be pretty natural for the GM to say "I don't think it's like that" but they'd need a reason to do so.

What the GM lacks is some sort of agenda to make any certain things happen, or depict any specific things. Instead the GM looks to the principles, practices, and core agenda of DW.

In terms of the basket weaving village, one might consider the agenda and principles, DW is a fantastic world of heroic adventure. Thus it is most likely that the baskets are magical devices and the village is cursed and haunted by a terrible monster with a big secret that just happens to put It in conflict with a PC!

 

[Faolyn]

I think the "just about every other RPG out there" is an overstatement; your second half is probably right, but in a number of games social skills don't automatically convince or compel an NPC either; they either function in an advisory role, or they impose a Condition that will nudge a character (PC or NPC) in a direction, but not force them.

Well, I honestly don't know of really any games that actually allow one PC to force another PC to think or act a certain way due to failed die rolls without magic or similar being involved.

 

[zakael19]

So this looks like the summary I asked for earlier.



Sure, and the point I’ve been making is that player agency has two broad types: character agency and meta-agency. Both are components of player agency.

What I’m doing is distinguishing how different systems emphasize these two types to different degrees. More specifically, systems don’t just vary in how much agency they give players, they also vary in what kind of agency they grant. Each system combines its own mix of character and meta-agency to create a particular style of play.

The line between them comes down to this: character agency arises when the player is acting as their character, making decisions from within the fictional perspective. Meta-agency arises when the player is acting for their character, using tools or rules that influence outcomes or structure from outside that fictional frame. Within each of these categories are many variations, combined differently across systems.



That’s not what I’m doing.

I’m not redefining player agency to fit only one kind. I’m analyzing it into parts: meta-agency and character agency. Player agency, as you describe it, still exists in my framework. I’m not replacing it, I’m breaking it down so we can understand what’s actually happening in different kinds of play.



An RPG isn’t just the rulebook. It’s the system, the play culture, the referee’s procedures, the campaign structure, everything that shapes the actual experience. If you focus only on "the game" as a closed ruleset, you miss the bigger picture. That leads to shallow or misleading analysis.

It’s also why looking at RPGs purely as “games” in the conventional sense can obscure what’s really going on. Yes, some campaigns are run exactly like a game: players pretend to be characters, they have adventures, and everything flows from the mechanics. But not all campaigns are like that. In many cases, the rules are just one layer among others, important, but not the whole story.



Saying that player agency is composed of character agency plus meta-agency doesn’t redefine it in the way you’re suggesting. What you describe as player agency is still present, it just becomes easier to analyze and explain when we recognize what types of agency are being exercised and how they interact.

Think of it like chemistry. We used to understand matter in bulk, liquids, solids, gases. That worked fine. Then we discovered molecules and then atoms, and built out from there. Chemistry still exists and works as it did before. It just got clearer, more refined, and better connected to other fields.

That’s what I’m trying to do with player agency. Your model still holds up inside mine. I’m just showing what it’s built from.

I feel the need to point out that you often take this “oh it’s too complex / more complex than your statement” tack - which is really frustrating. If everything is so complex we must write essays with every permutation considered, we can never discuss things. To say that “well we can’t know how much agency a player is given just on the basis of the rules without first unpacking the totality of “system” would suggest we can never really examine agency.

Also, a RPG is a game. It’s in the title . Once you’ve moved beyond free-form roleplay that functions purely on social consensus and added mechanics, you’re playing a game that can be analyzed using game theory and other tools. Edit: with the simple caveat of “we cannot account for all table cultures.”

 

[Faolyn]

No, you think it removes the fun because it's not free-form. People who may enjoy engaging with a game and play while also weaving fictional statements that match their Wits skills, hoping they anticipate their opponent's argument, and come away with a Win without taking to many hits love it.

Your second point is just reinforcing my post a little up thread:

Yes, I think it removes the fun because it takes what could be an interesting discussion between PCs or their players and turns it into a checklist.

 

[robertsconley]

I feel the need to point out that you often take this “oh it’s too complex / more complex than your statement” tack - which is really frustrating. If everything is so complex we must write essays with every permutation considered, we can never discuss things. To say that “well we can’t know how much agency a player is given just on the basis of the rules without first unpacking the totality of “system” would suggest we can never really examine agency.

Also, a RPG is a game. It’s in the title . Once you’ve moved beyond free-form roleplay that functions purely on social consensus and added mechanics, you’re playing a game that can be analyzed using game theory and other tools. Edit: with the simple caveat of “we cannot account for all table cultures.”

I’m not making things more complicated than they are. I’m pointing out that when we talk about agency in RPGs, the rules are only part of the picture. How those rules get applied, by the referee, in the context of a campaign, matters just as much. You can’t fully understand what kind of agency players have without looking at how the game is actually played.

RPGs are games, yes, but they aren’t like chess or basketball. They involve shared fiction, open-ended outcomes, and different kinds of authority structures. That means agency isn’t just about mechanical options. It’s also about how the system positions the player in relation to the fiction.

This is especially relevant for something like my Living World sandbox. Focusing only on the rules as written makes it easy to overlook how my campaign actually functions. And my sandbox isn’t unique in that respect, there’s a whole family of RPGs and campaigns shaped by principles like “rulings, not rules.” These elements may not be part of the game as defined in a traditional, mechanical sense, but they are essential to how player agency and gameplay unfold in practice. Ignoring them doesn’t simplify the discussion. It just leaves out the parts that matter most.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I feel the need to point out that you often take this “oh it’s too complex / more complex than your statement” tack - which is really frustrating. If everything is so complex we must write essays with every permutation considered, we can never discuss things. To say that “well we can’t know how much agency a player is given just on the basis of the rules without first unpacking the totality of “system” would suggest we can never really examine agency.

But we say this because we find it more complex than you are describing it. And people don't just stop there, they explain why. If it frustrates you, that isn't on us. We find your descriptions of our play style equally frustrating I am sure.

And none of this is saying we can't unpackage agency. Rob just broke down two components of agency being discussed. But saying how we talk about agency needs to consider the particulars of the game: that would seem to be a very very basic step in terms of understanding agency. If you are just using it like a bludgeon to categorize some games as having more, some as having less, when clearly there is a lot more going on in the details (like whether you are prioritizing POV or not, whether you are prioritizing power to impact game state, versus the autonomy you have as a character, etc). The problem with with the way you guys are talking about it, is it effectively is just a synonym for control of the game, which I don't find very illuminating.

Also, a RPG is a game. It’s in the title . Once you’ve moved beyond free-form roleplay that functions purely on social consensus and added mechanics, you’re playing a game that can be analyzed using game theory and other tools. Edit: with the simple caveat of “we cannot account for all table cultures.”

And RP is in the title. And people will use these kind of flawed definitional arguments to advance ideas like "Games with narrative mechanics aren't RPGs" or "game where you role instead of speak in character aren't RPGs". But the fact is, the RP aspect is still important. The setting aspect is still important. You aren't just playing a game of parcheesi. There are vast creative and imaginative components to play that cannot be overlooked if you are genuinely interested in analysis.

Further, any game theory is just a model. If you find it useful, that is great. But a lot of us don't find the model of analysis you guys are using helpful or illuminating at all, you can't just impose a model of analysis on people as if it is the scientific method and we are denying that the earth is spherical

 

[Maxperson]

I was replying to a post that said that players in D&D decide what their PC's mental capabilities are.

Yes, but I strongly suspect that they meant more what I said, than saying that the player can just decide to know the layout of a dungeon they have never been in and expect to be given the map.