A Question Of Agency?

[pemerton]

I'd had the thought it seemed vaguely Compel-ish, myself. I can see how it might feel dissonant (my word) or jarring (yours, I think) but it's ... moving some in-play agency into chargen, I guess? Doesn't mean a player is gonna like it (I don't, @Crimson Longinus apparently doesn't) but I guess it's a way to introduce an additional (maybe minor) pain point into chargen.

I also see it as an attempt to move beyond "rational actor" approaches to play, but without violating the Czege Principle in the way that was discussed upthread - ie the player decides whether or not his/her PC is tempted or provoked or whatever and then likewise just decides whether to succumb or resist. So the player can find him-/herself having to play a PC that responded in non-rational ways to the situation about them.

There are other devices that can be used instead. Eg in Apocalypse World if an attempt to Seduce/Manipulate a PC is used then the player gains an incentive (XP) to do what was asked and/or (depending on degree of success) an incentive (debuff) not to act otherwise. This attempts to align the player's rational motivations at the table with the character's irrational response, thus removing or at least reducing the gap I've pointed to between rational and non-rational responses.

Cortex+ Heroic uses a very different resolution mechanic from AW but in these contexts the upshot is similar: a successful influence attempt against a PC imposes a debuff that applies to actions that are contrary to what the influencer desired.

A slightly different point: upthread I think someone (@Crimson Longinus) worried that the Exalted mechanic will force players into suicidal duels and the like. Now I don't know what the GMing principles are in Exalted, nor how it establishes consequences. But in systems that I'm familiar with, like BW, Prince Valiant and Cortex+ Heroic and even Classic Traveller there are a range of system components that will tend to mean that this is not the case.

Perhaps the PC will lose a duel and then be taken prisoner for ransom, but that's the sort of thing that's meant to happen in a game of valorous heroes of great appetite and great passion!

 

[prabe]

There are other devices that can be used instead.

Yeah. Offhand I think I'd prefer a mechanic where Valor at given levels had specific benefits, and failure to act Valorously could cause the player to lose those levels (and their benefits), but it was the player's choice--especially if acting Valorously could enable gaining levels of it.

 

[pemerton]

Yeah. Offhand I think I'd prefer a mechanic where Valor at given levels had specific benefits, and failure to act Valorously could cause the player to lose those levels (and their benefits), but it was the player's choice--especially if acting Valorously could enable gaining levels of it.

I think why the sort of mechanic you describe is less preferred in "narrative"-style games is because it requires the GM to make judgements about the player's play of his/her PC - a bit like AD&D paladins.

It can also tend to produce unhappy feedback loops: the GM frames the player into a situation s/he thinks as demanding valour, the player balks, the GM then imposes the penalty, and now the player is more hesitant to act valorously, etc.

An alternative approach is the one taken by 4e: you only get a finite amount of "stuff"; and the stuff you choose dictates what you're good at; and the incentive to do what you're good at (eg by valorous) is that that's the way you get to deploy your stuff. From my 4e experience I think this doesn't produce as stark a painting of personalities as the Exalted mechanic might tend to.

 

[prabe]

I think why the sort of mechanic you describe is less preferred in "narrative"-style games is because it requires the GM to make judgements about the player's play of his/her PC - a bit like AD&D paladins.

It can also tend to produce unhappy feedback loops: the GM frames the player into a situation s/he thinks as demanding valour, the player balks, the GM then imposes the penalty, and now the player is more hesitant to act valorously, etc.

An alternative approach is the one taken by 4e: you only get a finite amount of "stuff"; and the stuff you choose dictates what you're good at; and the incentive to do what you're good at (eg by valorous) is that that's the way you get to deploy your stuff. From my 4e experience I think this doesn't produce as stark a painting of personalities as the Exalted mechanic might tend to.

Yeah. I was thinking "prefer to the Valor Mechanic in Exalted, as I understand the description."

I also think it might be possible to write it so it was fair--but not necessarily probable--where "fair" avoids those unhappy feedback loops.

 

[Lanefan]

Sure, sure. Are you familiar with Bell's Theorem? It stipulates that if a hidden variable is local it is incompatible with quantum mechanics, and if it agrees with quantum mechanics, it cannot be local. Can you please analyze this in the context of quantum mechanics versus classical mechanics theory?

Sure.

Bell's Theorem just means that when someone rings a bell, classical mechanics pours me a beer while quantum mechanics makes a beer appear in front of me out of thin air.

Either way I end up with a beer; and why do I need to care any further than that?

 

[Lanefan]

So, I think that there's a question of just how flexible are D&D DMs? They need not have any flexibility really, you're the (hopefully benevolent) dictator of all your table! There's nothing saying you have to give players much freedom to do things, and if you just don't particularly have a taste for something a given player is trying to do, there are a dozen easy ways to quash it, and they're well-supported with rules right out of the book (rule 0 if nothing else).

Now, obviously there can be fairly basic 'unobtrusive' goals that players can easily adopt for their PCs that will probably 'just work'. "I want to collect weird looking daggers." or whatever. But I've found over the years that AP type play is going to be pretty much about the AP. There's a set sequence, or a small set of possible paths, that can be taken through it. Any significant player agenda is mostly going to be in the way, it isn't adding directly to the main thrust of the game, and thus tends to get minimized. That's just how these things work.

I completely agree as regards AP play, which is why I'm not much of a fan of it unless the AP is merely a chapter built into a larger campaign; because there players have a bit more freedom: they might have other PCs out there to rotate in and out of the AP, and can always abandon the AP and go do other things in the setting should they so desire.

In a campaign that is only the AP, if the players/PCs abandon said AP the game pretty much ends.

 

[Lanefan]

... Maybe the fighter decides to build a castle near the river. The GM can indulge these to whatever extent, there just aren't any pro forma processes in D&D for how to do that. ...

To be fussy: in the 1e DMG there are some process guidelines as regards castle (stronghold) construction in terms of cost and time.

 

[Lanefan]

Who decides if the action declared at step 2 is successful? Who decides if the enemy dies? Or retreats?

If combat mechanics are present those mechanics determine whether the action is successful.

In any system that uses hit points or equivalent (which, I think, covers most of 'em) the gamestate decides if the enemy dies, based on the total numerical amount of damage or harm sustained thus far plus whatever the most recent action did to it.

The GM decides if the enemy retreats, either as a function of role-playing their actions in character or (in some systems) a result of game-induced elements such as morale checks.

 

[Lanefan]

No. The argument is that we want games in which the players can contribute to the shared fiction.

You might want to be a bit more specific with this; as what you specifically mean by "contribute to the shared fiction" and what anyone else might mean by it can (and does) vary widely.

For my part, as a player I feel I've "contributed to the shared fiction" the moment my character opens its mouth and says something; or even the moment I describe my character's looks and appearance when it's first introduced to the other PCs. And as this is true in absolutely any RPG out there, it thus follows that I-as-player can contribute to the shared fiction regardless of system in use.

What you mean by the phrase, as I know from experience, is something quite different; and while you'll probably dismiss my above-noted contributions as meaningless by your standards, rest assured they are not by mine.

 

[Lanefan]

Bond, Flaws, and Ideals in 5E are a weak, half-hearted afterthought, as the Inspiration mechanic on which they depend. I outright tell the players I DM for not to bother with them unless they want them for themselves as RP aids (which is about all they're good for, IMO).

If something like the whole Bonds-Flaws-Ideals set-up (or equivalent) ends up directing or forcing how one role-plays one's character, isn't it then just the same boxing-in principle as the RAW 1e alignment system only with more bells, louder whistles, and prettier boxes?

If yes, given how many D&D GMs either ditched or watered down* alignment over the years it's rather surprising this would fly.

* - as, incrementally, did D&D itself as each new edition followed the last.