A Question Of Agency?

[FrogReaver]

In D&D, when I declare that my fighter is going to attack the orc, have I authored the outcome? It simply happens? Do I have the ability to author the fiction in such a way?

Well, whether you have hit or missed, you in fact attacked the orc. So I'd say that's a clear example of authoring. You don't even have to wait on the die result to know this.

I would say we could explore an example of D&D player saying, I hit the orc. But D&D players don't typically talk like that. They will nearly universally use the word attack and not hit. I think it's safe to presume that's because they know beforehand the things they can author without being gated by whatever check is going to be called for.

To make both of these things an instance of Authorship is to make them indistinct, and clearly that’s not the case.

Or, if you think it is, then please explain why.

They aren't the same but for a different reason than you suggest. The D&D player in this example had full authority to author that he attacked the orc. There was no die roll needed for that to happen in the shared fiction.

 

[Ovinomancer]

No. In D&D play you roll when something is uncertain. The best way to solve a problem is to put yourself in a situation where the outcome will not be uncertain.

No. In D&D play you roll when the GM thinks something is uncertain. The best was to solve a problem is to put yourself in a situation where the GM doesn't think the outcome will be uncertain.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Now this could be an interesting side-conversation!

I absolutely agree that its covert Force. However, I think from first principles its also an interesting formulation of the Czege Principle for the following reasons (you tell me where you disagree):

1) In the Skilled Play priority of D&D (such that it persists and in whatever incarnation it persists in any given game), the GM, while being the referee, is still a player.

2) The game the GM is playing is "martial your resources to fairly provide obstacles to the players such that their decision-points are continuously meaningful in that they provide agency to distill Skilled Play from Unskilled Play."

HOWEVER...when that same GM suddenly smuggles in their own Storytelling Priority (be it an AP they've invested in or their own metaplot), suddenly, you have a different arrangement (that becomes EXTREMELY at tension with the Skilled Play Priority above). Now you have:

3) The protagonist/antagonist relationship suddenly becomes inverted. The dramatic impetus for play suddenly becomes the realization of the metaplot or AP's arc.

4) Who might be an obstacle to that? Why the Spellcaster of course (the GM would have gotten away with it if it weren't for that pesky high level Caster!)!

5) The Skill (or fun) part of this would be somehow (a) having the metaplot manifest (3) while (b) maintaining the integrity of (2) above!

So, put it all together and the GM has an obstacle (the PC spellcaster) to their goals (the metaplot's realization while maintaining the integrity of the crucible of Skilled Play). Instead of deftly handling the situation (if that can even be a thing given the ridiculous power of Spellcasters) in such a way that both the metaplot's realization and the integrity of the Skilled Play crucible are intact (eg let the intermediary of the game's resolution mechanics/procedures dictate the outcome and honor that)...they short-shrift the Skilled Play Priority while ensuring the Metaplot Realization Priority by unilateral fiat (initiating a block via their priveleged access to unestablished backstory/offscreen).

Yes to all of this, but it's still not a Czege Principle violation. While the GM has a hand in their own problem, they are not the author of it in the way I read the Czege Principle. I see how you get there, but it's a little too fuzzy for me to say that having an upstream hand in creating a problem is the same things as authoring a problem and it's solution. To me, this is just GM Force.

 

[hawkeyefan]

No. In D&D play you roll when something is uncertain. The best way to solve a problem is to put yourself in a situation where the outcome will not be uncertain.

I think that's likely true in most games. The roll is for something uncertain. Do you have any examples of games that call for rolls for things that are uncertain?

With that in mind, how does the following quote from @Crimson Longinus not apply to most RPGs?

But my main point was that if the mechanics allow you to state things about the fictional reality and roll to see whether it sticks, then that becomes the main way of solving problems.

The mechanics of most RPGs allow you to state things about the fictional reality and then roll to see if they stick.

The primary distinction in the Blades exampled compared to similar things in D&D is simply that the possibility that there was something supernatural about the painting originated with the player rather than the GM.

That's really it. You guys don't like it....which is fine. But that's Player Agency....that's the player having the ability to introduce elements to the fiction through action declaration.

How so?

By giving the player the ability to direct the fiction rather than relying on things that have already been established by the GM, but which are unknown to the players unless they perform the right actions at the right time. The GM was prompted by the player rather than the other way around.

Though again, I don't think that a whodunnit is good example for either approach.

Well, whether you have hit or missed, you in fact attacked the orc. So I'd say that's a clear example of authoring. You don't even have to wait on the die result to know this.

Nor does the player in the Blades game need to wait on the die result to know he's attempting to Attune to the painting.

I would say we could explore an example of D&D player saying, I hit the orc. But D&D players don't typically talk like that. They will nearly universally use the word attack and not hit. I think it's safe to presume that's because they know beforehand the things they can author without being gated by whatever check is going to be called for.

Again, this is no different than the Blades game. The player didn't declare success. He declared an attempt. The dice were what determined success or failure.

You're not pointing out how these things are different.

They aren't the same but for a different reason than you suggest. The D&D player in this example had full authority to author that he attacked the orc. There was no die roll needed for that to happen in the shared fiction.

Again, no distinction.

The two things in question as it related to Authorship......one suggestion is that Authorship is done by Fiat. This is what @Manbearcat suggested.

You said that any success at all is Authorship. Now it seems that you're going back on that, because you're saying that the player is free to Author that his PC attacks the orc. But doesn't he also Author that he hits the orc? Is the Player only able to Author the attempt? Or do the also Author the success as you said earlier?

What if he misses? Did he Author that he missed?

I don't think you're making a coherent case.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Does everyone know the board game Cluedo (Clue to Americans)? It is not a roleplaying game (albeit much more fun when everyone roleplays their characters,) but I try to make an analogy. (Which always goes well...) Imagine that instead of using the normal rules for gathering evidence, on their turn the player could name one suspect, weapon or room they search a clue about. It they rolled well enough, they would gain a clue about that specific thing. Once they had collected one of each category, they could make a final accusation with that combination (Colonel Mustard, in the dining room, with a knife) and if they rolled well enough that combination would be the correct one and they would win. Would this version have more player agency than the normal version? And yes, I know the first objection will be that it is completely differnt because it has no GM, but the standard version's secret envelope containing the correct solution is here analogous to the GM's 'secret backstory' based on which they do their best to judge things fairly. (I also understand that this is not at analogous to all GM directed games, but a certain subsection of them.)

 

[Lanefan]

I didn't explain this well at all, but I think the example @prabe shared and my response above is going in the thought train I had in mind. You're right, players can only interface with the in-fiction reality as it is presented to them.

What I was trying to get at is, so much of in-fiction reality is controlled by the framing.

Either through or intentionality, negligence, or lack of foresight, it's incredibly easy for GMs in "traditional" RPG play to frame scenes such that any potential opportunities for the players to act in ways that speak to the concerns of the PCs are instantly blocked---and there is no mechanical recourse.

Which, if such blockage makes sense in the fiction, is fine. They have to find a plan B.

"Turlk is a kid, he doesn't understand geography" was the in-fiction reality as presented in @prabe's game. If that's the in-fiction reality my PC is framed into, then sure, that's all I have to work with. And in D&D 3, it doesn't matter if I feel there's something at stake in finding that village; no amount of "Gather Information", "Perception," or "Intimidation" checks are going to get that information out of Turlk. The mechanics, along with the GM techniques/presentation/assumptions of gameplay coded into D&D 3 provide no interaction points for me, as a player, to get information from Turlk if I feel there's something important at stake in getting that information.

Thus, if I can't mechanically get the information now, due to the framing of the scene, my only other courses of "agency" are:

• Make new action declarations to find someone who actually DOES know where the village is. But now I'm wasting precious real time at the table to do that. When you only play 8 hours a month, every second counts. Is this potentially more "realistic" in terms of the "in-game fiction"? Eh, maybe. But now not only am I not getting to pursue something of interest, I'm being forcibly required by the GM to waste real game time until I do get to pursue it. And I'm sorry, that stopped being fun sometime around 2006 for me.
• Enact some form of social engineering to "Game the GM" / play "mother may I" so I can get what I actually want.

I'm not that precious about table time. I've got the rest of my life to play this out, and as I don't plan on dying anytime soon that might mean hundreds if not thousands of sessions yet remain.

Not that I'm saying all those sessions needs be spent trying to find a village; but if we don't get to the village this session, we'll get there next session, or the session after; whenever.

So if the kid doesn't know about geography then so be it, we have to find someone else. Could be as simple as asking the kid to take us to (his?) parents.....

Same principle as a clause I had to put into my 'Speak With Dead' write-up after some attempted abuses: "the dead corpse can't tell you something the live corpse didn't know".

Whereas, in Ironsworn, a "Gather Information" move looks like this:

GATHER INFORMATION
When you search an area, ask questions, conduct an investigation, or follow a track, roll +wits. If you act within a community or ask questions of a person with whom you share a bond, add +1.
On a strong hit, you discover something helpful and specific. The path you must follow or action you must take to make progress is made clear. Envision what you learn (Ask the Oracle if unsure), and take +2 momentum.
On a weak hit, the information complicates your quest or introduces a new danger. Envision what you discover (Ask the Oracle if unsure), and take +1 momentum.
On a miss, your investigation unearths a dire threat or reveals an unwelcome truth that undermines your quest. Pay the Price.

So tell me, which option allows the player more agency?

That bit of Ironsworn rules has the same issue as other bits of game rules that have been quoted: where and how can the GM outright lie to the PCs, or mislead them, on a badly-failed check?

How this reads to me, in short:
Stong hit: get useful/helpful true info.
Weak hit: get true info with a complication.
Miss: get true info that isn't welcome, or comes with a serious threat.

I don't see "get false or misleading info" in there anywhere. I also don't see "get no info at all", which could be another rather obvious fail result.

One final observation --- Over the past 3 years, I have consciously attempted to implement "Say yes or roll the dice" as a core principle while GM-ing Savage Worlds, but it's hard. Because there's no systematized backing of that principle in the game mechanics. It's still too easy to catch myself thinking, "Well, that wouldn't be immediately apparent to the character," or, "I can't just share that with the players NOW." I have to constantly check against my own instincts---"Well, are you sure you can't share that? Does this play into what the players are looking for?"

If whatever it is is not available for the PC to know, then the PC doesn't and can't know it.

I'll say yes when the fiction justifies it; I'll say no when the fiction justifies it, and dice get rolled the rest of the time.

 

[FrogReaver]

The mechanics of most RPGs allow you to state things about the fictional reality and then roll to see if they stick.

What in D&D does a player state about the fictional reality that they then roll to see if it sticks? The player in D&D simply doesn't propose fictional reality - other than his characters actions. He does author his PC's actions (attempted), whereas the DM typically authors the outcomes of those actions. Contrast that to the much talked about painting example where the player authored the PC as attempting to attune to the painting and also what would be the outcome if they were successful.

The primary distinction in the Blades exampled compared to similar things in D&D is simply that the possibility that there was something supernatural about the painting originated with the player rather than the GM.

The painting example was more explicit than that. It wasn't simply about whether it was supernatural. It was about whether it would be usable to solve a particular goal.

That's really it. You guys don't like it....which is fine. But that's Player Agency....that's the player having the ability to introduce elements to the fiction through action declaration.

We all agree that's a form of player agency. If anyone ever argued it wasn't it's been over a hundred pages since it happened.

Some of the questions around that are:
Does having that type of player agency actually mean you have more overall agency?
Is having that type of player agency a universally good thing?
Does having that type of player agency prevent you from having another type of player agency?
Does that kind of player agency violate the Czege principle or any of it's cousins.
Etc.

By giving the player the ability to direct the fiction rather than relying on things that have already been established by the GM, but which are unknown to the players unless they perform the right actions at the right time. The GM was prompted by the player rather than the other way around.

Sure

Nor does the player in the Blades game need to wait on the die result to know he's attempting to Attune to the painting.

Sure, but the player in Blades did more than fictionally attempt to attune to the painting. If all that was happening in that game was that fictional attempt to attune then I'd be in full agreement with you. But in Blades the player also set up what the success state would look like.

In D&D the player authors their action and the DM authors the outcome regardless of success or failure.
In whatever game had the painting example the player authors their action and also authors the outcomes if it's a true success.

You are conflating the ability to author the action with the ability to author the outcome.

Again, this is no different than the Blades game. The player didn't declare success. He declared an attempt. The dice were what determined success or failure.

The person that is authoring the outcome is different.

You're not pointing out how these things are different.

Or are you just ignoring when I do?

Again, no distinction.

The two things in question as it related to Authorship......one suggestion is that Authorship is done by Fiat. This is what @Manbearcat suggested.

Define Fiat then, because everyone of these authorship examples looks like it is fiat to me.

You said that any success at all is Authorship. Now it seems that you're going back on that, because you're saying that the player is free to Author that his PC attacks the orc.

In D&D the DM is the author of a success. The PC authors the action attempt. If there is a success the DM authors the success. You've played D&D before. How is this not obvious to you?

In the game with the painting that we have been discussing, the DM wasn't the author on a success as the player explicitly stated what he wanted on a success.

But doesn't he also Author that he hits the orc? Is the Player only able to Author the attempt? Or do the also Author the success as you said earlier?

No. In D&D The DM does the authoring of the outcome.

What if he misses? Did he Author that he missed?

I don't think you're making a coherent case.

And I don't think your objection is at all coherent.

 

[Lanefan]

Let’s try not to get too hung up on the word “Author”, right? Instead look at the two things that are being discussed.

If you do that, the system would certainly seem to have an impact here, no?

In D&D, when I declare that my fighter is going to attack the orc, have I authored the outcome? It simply happens? Do I have the ability to author the fiction in such a way?

No, of course not. A roll is required to see if my attempt is successful.

To make both of these things an instance of Authorship is to make them indistinct, and clearly that’s not the case.

Or, if you think it is, then please explain why.

You author the attempt by declaring "I attack the Orc". This is then amended by the die roll into one of "I hit the Orc" or "My attack fails and I miss". Here, you-as-player are still authoring, only what you author is informed by the die roll(s).

One could argue, I suppose, that you-as-player authored the attempt and the dice/system authored the result; but if one supposes that the system cannot in itself author anything then authorship of the result has to fall to either the player or the GM; and as the GM's not involved here the player becomes the default.

 

[FrogReaver]

You author the attempt by declaring "I attack the Orc". This is then amended by the die roll into one of "I hit the Orc" or "My attack fails and I miss". Here, you-as-player are still authoring, only what you author is informed by the die roll(s).

One could argue, I suppose, that you-as-player authored the attempt and the dice/system authored the result; but if one supposes that the system cannot in itself author anything then authorship of the result has to fall to either the player or the GM; and as the GM's not involved here the player becomes the default.

I can imagine a case where the ORC is a high level NPC and the players attack on it is successful but is narrated as the ORC NPC deflects the blow but gains considerable respect for the warrior able to fight this well. That's not everyone's flavor of D&D though.

 

[Lanefan]

The mechanics of most RPGs allow you to state things about the fictional reality {---} and then roll to see if they stick.

I inserted the '{---}' to show where a missing clause needs to go; that clause being "regarding your character" or similar, in which case yes it does apply to most RPGs.

In far fewer RPGs can one state things about the fictional reality remote from your character (e.g. the widget is hidden in this chest) and then roll to see if it sticks.