A Question Of Agency?

[Crimson Longinus]

I find it curious that you think combat in D&D is not very interesting.

Well, it is not super interesting. But what makes it interesting is not the RNG, it is the tactical decisions which matter as there is objective reality against which they can be made.

No, I'm describing a process by which the player has placed stakes on the table. Those stakes are what make the difference, not what they player just wants. I'm hoping that what the player wants goes to what stakes they set -- here the player chose a very weak action for that character because they made the in-character decision to try to keep their issues with their disgrace from the University and attempts to correct that to themselves. That the portrait turned out how it did was due to the stakes the player put on the table with the action declaration and the intent.

The player effectively decides what the item is. They had a backstory motivations yea, they needed a certain sort of item for the university. That was their goal. And they got to decide that the first item they saw would be that item, they could make it so that it was. Sure, there was RNG involved but that's besides the point. They decided their quest (bring item to university) and the solution (this item is that item). That is a clear Czege principle violation. It's like if my quest was to search the Holy Grail and the mechanics allowed me to just grab the firs cup that I came across and RNG it into the Grail.

I was happy you'd read the SRD, but it really appears that you didn't try to understand it, you just skimmed it for new ways to use double standards.

To me it seems that you're unable to properly analyse what is actually happening in your own play examples. Who decides what at which point, and which decision lead to what. You're letting the fluff and RNG obfuscate where the decision points actually lie.

 

[Aldarc]

The player effectively decides what the item is. They had a backstory motivations yea, they needed a certain sort of item for the university. That was their goal. And they got to decide that the first item they saw would be that item, they could make it so that it was. Sure, there was RNG involved but that's besides the point. They decided their quest (bring item to university) and the solution (this item is that item). That is a clear Czege principle violation. It's like if my quest was to search the Holy Grail and the mechanics allowed me to just grab the firs cup that I came across and RNG it into the Grail.

Ironically, it's likely that your misunderstanding of the actual process of play here and your declaration that this constitutes a Czege principle violation is the actual violation of the Czege principle.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Ironically, it's likely that your misunderstanding of the actual process of play here and your declaration that this constitutes a Czege principle violation is the actual violation of the Czege principle.

Your sentence doesn't make any sense. It of course it perfectly possible that I am mistaken, but then you actually need to point out where an how.

 

[prabe]

So, given that arrangement (and I'll reiterate my question here):

(a) What are the vectors for Force that you would use as a GM and (b) demonstrate to me how the players wouldn't (c) detect it and foil it?

So, it has occurred to me that a DM in D&D (as usual, thinking 5E because it's the edition living in my brain) has a lot of agency over when things happen, but a lot less agency over what happens--most effects are predetermined, or at least defined in the rules; the DM is just deciding when they happen--while a GM in, say, Blades has effectively no agency over when anything happens--that's entirely up to the dice, so I think there's an argument no one has agency over it--but a lot of agency over what happens (so long as the table is willing to agree it follows from the fiction).

That's only quasi-related to your question, though.

As is this: A DM fudging a die roll because they want the story to go a specific place doesn't seem to be operating from a different motive from a GM in Blades who chooses an outcome because they want the story to go a specific place. Not that anyone has been impugning GM motives much, that I've seen.

If I were going to apply Force in a game of 5E, the obvious place would be the die rolls (or target numbers/DCs) hidden from the players. A less-obvious place might be in enemy/NPC decisions/tactics: a GM can shape things by playing the NPCs/enemies as more or less intelligent than they should be. Perhaps less obvious than that would be something like scenario design, where the PCs have limited options, information, and/or time. Perhaps less obvious than that would be stuff a GM can do with scene-framing, where like a good writer you can center attention on what you want (taking advantage of willing suspension of disbelief).

I've only read the SRD for Blades, but I don't remember seeing much in the way of mechanical constraints on the GM for framing scenes, or choosing outcomes. Those would be the places I would look.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well, it is not super interesting. But what makes it interesting is not the RNG, it is the tactical decisions which matter as there is objective reality against which they can be made.

You mean the tactical decisions that don't do anything unless the dice are engaged? And, you're seriously claiming that rolling a clutch 20 is not interesting?

The mistake you're making here is thinking that Blades just works on an RNG. There's an element of chance to checks, absolutely -- and this is part of every RPG out there, to a greater or lesser degree. Blades appears to have more checks than, say, a D&D game, but there's some very big structural issues to this. For one, Blades doesn't bother with low-interest things. If a check is made, it's because it matters. Secondly, the game is structured so that the majority of play is within the Score portion, where action is frenetic, so lots of risky actions are taken and checks are generated. There aren't session long RP sessions with no rolls in Blades because that's not the fiction the game is designed to create. So, the appearance of more reliance on rolls is a bit false, because the game either skims over parts where checks aren't needed or just says yes to them. It's not that Blades has more dependence on checks, but rather that it focuses play on areas where checks happen.

D&D has a huge number of checks in any combat heavy session -- far more than Blades does in a given session usually happen in a single combat, much less a few. Four Party members vs four monsters for 3 rounds is usually going to be around 20 individual die rolls, if we're ignoring area of effect... effects. I'm pretty sure there about that many rolls in my haunted house session -- which was a long and complex score -- and we got a lot more done with those.

So, yeah, trying to pin RNG on Blades is absolutely ignoring how RNG is used even more in D&D. When you have rolls that are, "I swing, I hit AC 19, I do 14 damage," then you get in a lot more because these take less time but aren't terribly interesting. In Blades, a roll directly engages everyone at the table because when the dice stop, the situation will absolutely be changed, and not in a 14 fewer hitpoints way.

The player effectively decides what the item is. They had a backstory motivations yea, they needed a certain sort of item for the university. That was their goal. And they got to decide that the first item they saw would be that item, they could make it so that it was. Sure, there was RNG involved but that's besides the point. They decided their quest (bring item to university) and the solution (this item is that item). That is a clear Czege principle violation. It's like if my quest was to search the Holy Grail and the mechanics allowed me to just grab the firs cup that I came across and RNG it into the Grail.

Okay, look, here's where you've gone wrong -- the point of the interaction was NOT to find out if the painting was magical. That's just a bit of flavor in this context. Instead, it was to find out if the painting was useful to the PC's goals. It being magical was just the fictional positioning to be useful. What actually happened in the game was that the painting was NOT useful to the PC's goals. This cannot be a Czege Principle violation because 1) the player didn't narrate both ends of the deal -- proposed problem and the solution; and 2) the player didn't get the solution they wanted. You've locked onto being able to say the painting is important because that's one of the big differences between Blades and D&D -- in D&D only the GM has this authority. But, just because the player was able to say that this thing is important does NOT mean that they got what they wanted from it. Here, the player absolutely did not get what they wanted -- in fact, they didn't come out of the manor with anything that would help this goal because the resolution to the intent -- can I find something useful to my goal with the University -- was tested and failed and was binding. The player could just shrug and turn to the next painting down the hall and start this over -- the issue was resovled.

To me it seems that you're unable to properly analyse what is actually happening in your own play examples. Who decides what at which point, and which decision lead to what. You're letting the fluff and RNG obfuscate where the decision points actually lie.

No -- I'll absolutely talk about where Blades has issues. It's a very narrow genre emulator, so if you don't like the themes, you're out of luck. It's so tightly integrated across all levels of play that it's challenging to successfully modify. It puts a lot more pressure and weight on the players to drive play -- it is not at all passive for players. You can get into some failure spirals, which can be pretty brutal -- failure leads to desperate situations where failure has real teeth and can render long term problems (serious wounds take time to heal, for example). It's not everyone's cup of tea -- just ask @prabe.

But those aren't the ones you're bringing up -- you're mired in your very narrow take on how games run and you're trying to fit Blades into the shape you're familiar with. I quoted myself from three years ago making the same arguments you're making now! The difference now is that I have actual experience with the games in question, and have that experience with the idea that I'm trying to learn how they work rather than look for ways to support my pre-existing biases. The other difference is that you seem to be perfectly fine with the double standard, which is something I tend to very much dislike in general, and probably why I started listening -- the only way I could continue to argue after a bit of knowledge would have been to employ the special reasoning.

 

[prabe]

You can get into some failure spirals, which can be pretty brutal -- failure leads to desperate situations where failure has real teeth and can render long term problem

The probabilities look to me as though this path is all-but-certain, which is probably part of why it feels to me as though it doesn't really have any agency: The characters can't really accomplish anything.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So, it has occurred to me that a DM in D&D (as usual, thinking 5E because it's the edition living in my brain) has a lot of agency over when things happen, but a lot less agency over what happens--most effects are predetermined, or at least defined in the rules; the DM is just deciding when they happen--while a GM in, say, Blades has effectively no agency over when anything happens--that's entirely up to the dice, so I think there's an argument no one has agency over it--but a lot of agency over what happens (so long as the table is willing to agree it follows from the fiction).

This is an interesting observation, and but the idea that effects are predetermined kind of elides a few things. First, most of these are predetermined by the GM themselves, in whatever design they've placed in their notes or whichever set of published materials they've decided to adopt without modification. The GM still has the agency over these outcomes, it's just displaced from the moment of play.

However, there is one area where things are very locked in -- spells. These are the refuge of agency in D&D, because the rules dictate that if you cast a spell, XYZ happens. This is the point and method whereby the players get the most say in the game. I find this interesting because there's a strong contingent of GMs that dislike the prevalence of magic ability in 5e, and I think that, while not entirely or even necessarily mostly, that this factors into it. Having lots of players that have spells means that they have a lot more agency over the situation, provided a spell addresses it.

That's only quasi-related to your question, though.

As is this: A DM fudging a die roll because they want the story to go a specific place doesn't seem to be operating from a different motive from a GM in Blades who chooses an outcome because they want the story to go a specific place. Not that anyone has been impugning GM motives much, that I've seen.

I absolutely agree these would be analogous. The difference is that fudging the die roll is hidden, so the GM can do this and keep the Force from the players' awareness. The Blades GM cannot -- it's pretty obvious this is going on. I know, the "subtle manipulation" argument, but this presupposes a strong GM agenda, which is anathema to the concept of Blades, and also a very skilled social manipulator to be able to do this covertly in the crucible of Blades play -- where everything is out in the open so manipulation would have to be very subtle. It's not a strong basis for an argument. Any GM in 5e making rolls behind the screen can fudge the dice without much effort (it's one reason I roll in the open -- and did prior to learning different approaches), but a GM in Blades attempting to direct play would have to put in a tremendous effort, and I'm not sure what the payoff is? The GM in 5e presumably, if acting in good faith, is acting to improve the game, at least from their understanding. This isn't necessary in Blades, for multiple reasons.

If I were going to apply Force in a game of 5E, the obvious place would be the die rolls (or target numbers/DCs) hidden from the players. A less-obvious place might be in enemy/NPC decisions/tactics: a GM can shape things by playing the NPCs/enemies as more or less intelligent than they should be. Perhaps less obvious than that would be something like scenario design, where the PCs have limited options, information, and/or time. Perhaps less obvious than that would be stuff a GM can do with scene-framing, where like a good writer you can center attention on what you want (taking advantage of willing suspension of disbelief).

I've only read the SRD for Blades, but I don't remember seeing much in the way of mechanical constraints on the GM for framing scenes, or choosing outcomes. Those would be the places I would look.

The SRD doesn't go in depth into how you're supposed to do these things because it just lists the principles of play with a quick blurb. There's an entire section on "How to Run the Game" in the rulebook that does provide these things. It's like how the 3.x or 5e SRDs don't really have a lot of information about how to run the game, while the DMG has a few chapters on the topic (and is worth reading).

 

[Crimson Longinus]

You mean the tactical decisions that don't do anything unless the dice are engaged? And, you're seriously claiming that rolling a clutch 20 is not interesting?

The mistake you're making here is thinking that Blades just works on an RNG. There's an element of chance to checks, absolutely -- and this is part of every RPG out there, to a greater or lesser degree. Blades appears to have more checks than, say, a D&D game, but there's some very big structural issues to this. For one, Blades doesn't bother with low-interest things. If a check is made, it's because it matters. Secondly, the game is structured so that the majority of play is within the Score portion, where action is frenetic, so lots of risky actions are taken and checks are generated. There aren't session long RP sessions with no rolls in Blades because that's not the fiction the game is designed to create. So, the appearance of more reliance on rolls is a bit false, because the game either skims over parts where checks aren't needed or just says yes to them. It's not that Blades has more dependence on checks, but rather that it focuses play on areas where checks happen.

D&D has a huge number of checks in any combat heavy session -- far more than Blades does in a given session usually happen in a single combat, much less a few. Four Party members vs four monsters for 3 rounds is usually going to be around 20 individual die rolls, if we're ignoring area of effect... effects. I'm pretty sure there about that many rolls in my haunted house session -- which was a long and complex score -- and we got a lot more done with those.

So, yeah, trying to pin RNG on Blades is absolutely ignoring how RNG is used even more in D&D. When you have rolls that are, "I swing, I hit AC 19, I do 14 damage," then you get in a lot more because these take less time but aren't terribly interesting. In Blades, a roll directly engages everyone at the table because when the dice stop, the situation will absolutely be changed, and not in a 14 fewer hitpoints way.

You are absolutely correct that a D&D combat has loads of die rolling, which actually makes the RNG matter far less! Over the course of combat so many rolls are made that it evens out the odds. So the combat is won or lost by the tactical decisions the players make. That is agency.

Okay, look, here's where you've gone wrong -- the point of the interaction was NOT to find out if the painting was magical. That's just a bit of flavor in this context. Instead, it was to find out if the painting was useful to the PC's goals. It being magical was just the fictional positioning to be useful. What actually happened in the game was that the painting was NOT useful to the PC's goals. This cannot be a Czege Principle violation because 1) the player didn't narrate both ends of the deal -- proposed problem and the solution; and 2) the player didn't get the solution they wanted. You've locked onto being able to say the painting is important because that's one of the big differences between Blades and D&D -- in D&D only the GM has this authority. But, just because the player was able to say that this thing is important does NOT mean that they got what they wanted from it. Here, the player absolutely did not get what they wanted -- in fact, they didn't come out of the manor with anything that would help this goal because the resolution to the intent -- can I find something useful to my goal with the University -- was tested and failed and was binding. The player could just shrug and turn to the next painting down the hall and start this over -- the issue was resovled.

You think that RNG is an interesting obstacle. The player gets to dictate the first item they see to be an item they need for their 'quest'. Sure, they had bad luck, doesn't mean that the whole quest isn't a super low-agency affair. There are no information to be gained, no interesting decisions to be made. Just latch on the first thing you see and roll the die. Whoop de doo!

No -- I'll absolutely talk about where Blades has issues. It's a very narrow genre emulator, so if you don't like the themes, you're out of luck. It's so tightly integrated across all levels of play that it's challenging to successfully modify. It puts a lot more pressure and weight on the players to drive play -- it is not at all passive for players. You can get into some failure spirals, which can be pretty brutal -- failure leads to desperate situations where failure has real teeth and can render long term problems (serious wounds take time to heal, for example). It's not everyone's cup of tea -- just ask @prabe.

But those aren't the ones you're bringing up -- you're mired in your very narrow take on how games run and you're trying to fit Blades into the shape you're familiar with. I quoted myself from three years ago making the same arguments you're making now! The difference now is that I have actual experience with the games in question, and have that experience with the idea that I'm trying to learn how they work rather than look for ways to support my pre-existing biases. The other difference is that you seem to be perfectly fine with the double standard, which is something I tend to very much dislike in general, and probably why I started listening -- the only way I could continue to argue after a bit of knowledge would have been to employ the special reasoning.

The issue is that you think that getting to roll dice to see whether you get to narrate a bit of the story is agency and I think making (at least somewhat) informed tactical or dramatic decisions is agency. It's like in the Lancelot situation where I though that the player getting to make the dramatic decision was agency and you thought that the player getting to roll the dice to see what their character does was.

 

[Aldarc]

The probabilities look to me as though this path is all-but-certain, which is probably part of why it feels to me as though it doesn't really have any agency: The characters can't really accomplish anything.

In BitD, the emphasis is place a bit more strongly on the accomplishment of the Crew rather than the accomplishment of the individual characters. Characters may come and go in pursuit of their goals, but hopefully the Crew survives.

 

[prabe]

In BitD, the emphasis is place a bit more strongly on the accomplishment of the Crew rather than the accomplishment of the individual characters. Characters may come and go in pursuit of their goals, but hopefully the Crew survives.

I'd be inclined to say if the characters can't accomplish anything then the Crew can't, either. I mean, without the characters there's no Crew ...