Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8134729" data-attributes="member: 16814">It is different, though.  I get what you're saying, but there's a pretty big gulf between a game where the GM considers such things and uses them to create more story (ie, GM driven) and a game where the GM is only ever reacting to player action declarations and the mechanical resolution of these.  I have direct experiences, in that I still run (and enjoy) 5e, where even as I allow a much greater degree of input to the game the very nature of the mechanics and game mean I'm still in the drivers seat as GM, and I also currently run Blades in the Dark, where as the GM I'm just spinning off whatever the player actions and mechanics say.  These two things deliver very different play experiences, even as I strive to make my 5e game much more open to player input and driving.  Very different.The argument [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] is making is that the very fact that the GM is not beholden to do so -- that it's, at best, the GM informally agreeing to do so -- means that agency is impacted.  I don't necessarily agree -- you can run a 5e game in a principled way that maximizes agency, but you're going to have to agree to a set of table rules or social conventions that make it so; the game as written largely discounts player agency.  And, while it's true an individual table or group can have quite a bit of agency, I think it's a fair evaluation to say that absent direct and independent action by those players, the baseline is low agency.Honestly, I think that a symptom of low agency in D&D games is murderhobo-ism.  If you evaluate any complaint of players behaving as murder hobos, you can find concrete examples of how agency is being abridged in ways that have pushed players into this play or habit of play.And, you're right back to the GM deciding how things work based on the GM's appreciation of the situation.  If you, instead, follow the mechanical outcomes, then only a failure on a check that fictionally ties into the followers' allegiance could do so, and there's not any stealth action declarations that the GM is evaluating outside of the mechanics to deliver this failure.  You don't have to ignore these events, no, by all means, do not do this.  Just, instead of deciding unilaterally what the result is, call it out and either put it to a check or ask what the PCs are going to do to prevent this bad thing and put that to a check.  I mean, if your goal is to maximize agency, which isn't always desirable or according to preferences.  And it's fine if it isn't -- as I say, when I run 5e I definitely step on agency compared to when I run Blades, but then the games deliver different modes of enjoyment for myself and my players -- Blades is wild and emotionally impactful (it's like a rollercoaster), and 5e is much more tactical in nature.  As I run for a bunch of wargame and boardgame lovers, it's not unsurprising that they enjoy this as well.</blockquote>

Verification