A Question Of Agency?

[Lanefan]

So a couple of questions (for everyone):

* Do you believe that (non 4e) D&D has a Spellcaster problem?

As written, more or less yes. (and why exclude 4e here?)

* If so, have you ever leveraged those blocks?

Those you've noted, rarely; and more for variety's sake than to specifically hose casters. (a null-magic zone that knocks out magic items hoses warriors every bit as much as casters!)

On a more overall level I've done a few things to rein in casters a bit - casting generally takes time and is easily interrupted, many spells require an aiming roll (you don't get to place it exactly where you want), wild magic is a risk if something goes wrong, you can't cast while in melee, that sort of thing.

 

[Campbell]

So I have believed for a very long that GM facing mechanics often provide basically the perfect cover fire for illusionism. They provide an heir of legitimacy to proceedings that makes it much more difficult to tell when the GM is trying to push play in a particular direction.

They are also somewhat necessary for the sort of clever gamist play of OSR games as well as more modern faire like PF2.

 

[Lanefan]

I had a high level campaign with a wizard character run by a very savvy player. Between his spells, the abilities from the archmage prestige class, and his accumulated magical crap, he was ridiculous.

I mean, I embraced it in ways. It was fun to watch him do his thing. But to meaningfully threaten that character, I had to throw over the top threats at the party. Ones that would largely squash many of the other PCs.

Oddly enough, I find almost the exact opposite in my/our games: to meaningfully threaten the high-end fighters often means squashing the spindly casters like bugs. (I really notice this as a player - I play a lot of spindly casters these days - but I also notice it as a DM)

 

[hawkeyefan]

I mean, any game has a certain amount of agency, I think, and what agency a game has is distributed differently from game to game. I don't think it's necessarily true that removing agency from one person at the table automatically means other people at the table get it. This is a thought I've been turning over in my head the past day or two, and I don't think it's fully-formed. Maybe it needs more time, maybe it needs another thinker.

It’s interesting, for sure, and I don’t think I’m certain on it either. But I think there’s a relationship there, for sure. Is it a one for one transfer? I don’t know about that.

But...let’s say that you take some agency from the players...where does it go if not to the GM? And vice versa?

 

[Fenris-77]

Generally speaking, the division of authority starts with a model like D&D and from there you move down the spectrum with different bits of authority devolving to the players in different systems. Authority doesn't generally move the other way round. I mean the spectrum goes both ways, but historically speaking what we've seen is a steady movement toward devolving more authority on the players, which does indeed come from the GMs slice of the authority pie, which isn't a bad thing, or a good thing, just a thing.

 

[prabe]

It’s interesting, for sure, and I don’t think I’m certain on it either. But I think there’s a relationship there, for sure. Is it a one for one transfer? I don’t know about that.

But...let’s say that you take some agency from the players...where does it go if not to the GM? And vice versa?

Well ... possibly there's just less agency overall. I'm willing to suppose it's possible for games to have differing amounts of agency. I'm willing to find out that's not so.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So I was reading the old thread @Ovinomancer referred to and in that I found exchanges between @Manbearcat and @Nagol about Dungeon World. Nagol seemed to be very familiar with the game, and made similar observation than I did regarding Blades in the Dark (these game are related, right?) That due the open endedness of the consequences it is susceptible to GM force. So whilst I don't particularly want to continue to argue to which extent this is case or not, as I have no practical experience of the system, I nevertheless feel somewhat vindicated that a person who seems to have extensive experience thinks this too.

 

[prabe]

Generally speaking, the division of authority starts with a model like D&D and from there you move down the spectrum with different bits of authority devolving to the players in different systems. Authority doesn't generally move the other way round. I mean the spectrum goes both ways, but historically speaking what we've seen is a steady movement toward devolving more authority on the players, which does indeed come from the GMs slice of the authority pie, which isn't a bad thing, or a good thing, just a thing.

Yeah. Older D&D (along with things like CoC maybe) would definitely seem to have as much agency centered on the GM as seems plausible for a TRPG, and agency has definitely moved toward the players as TRPG design has evolved.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It’s interesting, for sure, and I don’t think I’m certain on it either. But I think there’s a relationship there, for sure. Is it a one for one transfer? I don’t know about that.

But...let’s say that you take some agency from the players...where does it go if not to the GM? And vice versa?

The system takes it. Look at boardgames, where you're only allowed agency as a player within the confines of the system. A game like CandyLand has no agency except to choose to play it. A game like Pandemic has a lot more agency, but less than an RPG, for sure.

 

[Ovinomancer]

So I was reading the old thread @Ovinomancer referred to and in that I found exchanges between @Manbearcat and @Nagol about Dungeon World. Nagol seemed to be very familiar with the game, and made similar observation than I did regarding Blades in the Dark (these game are related, right?) That due the open endedness of the consequences it is susceptible to GM force. So whilst I don't particularly want to continue to argue to which extent this is case or not, as I have no practical experience of the system, I nevertheless feel somewhat vindicated that a person who seems to have extensive experience thinks this too.

Link, please, because I frankly don't trust your gloss. Not that I think you dishonest, far from it, but rather that you've already shown a resistance to nuance on these topics.