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: 8165841" data-attributes="member: 16814">Well, yes, there is.  If the GM is unilaterally deciding something, the player has no agency in that decision.  If the GM calls for a check, then we need to evaluate the check mechanisms to see if agency is present.  Usually, some agency is present in a check, especially if assuming good faith play, but how much is a pointed question.If the GM sets the stakes, the outcome space, and specifies the particulars of the check (ie, 5e style), then there's little player agency involved.  This can be mitigated if the GM negotiates stakes, or has gifted formally the authority to determine skill application (thus engaging build choices) in the rolls, or some other things.  These are the formal changes I've made to my 5e game -- I call for the check, yes, but I negotiate the resolution space prior to the roll so the player has the necessary information to understand the ramifications of their action and can choose otherwise, and I only select the ability tested -- the player has authority to apply any relevant proficiency they think works.  These are formal -- in that there's a table rules document that establishes this, and it's discussed and made clear often.  They aren't against the rules, but they are in addition to them.Contrast this to a game like Blades in the Dark.  Yes, the GM can call for a check, but the player gets to set the success resolution space without regard to the GM.  The GM does have some ability to limit that space with the Effect, but has to have clear justification for doing so.  And, then, the player has many resources to bring to bear to adjust that limitation, possibly removing it entirely.  The GM has authority over the failure resolution space only.  What check is made is also entirely up to the player -- the GM has no ability to gainsay how the player chooses to address the situation.  This leaves the player with quite a lot of agency -- with clear information on stakes, ability to control part of the resolution space, and the ability to directly control the test used.  Not to mention the many player-side resources that can mitigate failures or alter these points of control.So, no, it's totally incorrect to say that a GM unilaterally deciding something is the same amount of agency for the player as the GM calling for a check.  This is pretty similar to how I run 5e, yes, because that's the way that system's rules say to play.  I add a lot of negotiation and limitations to this --  clear stakes, roll in the open, and player picks proficiency -- and these are formalized, so, in my game, there's more agency than in a game running strictly by the rules.  This is the thing I've talked about recently, though -- when analyzing a game, you go by the rules, not what someone does at a specific table.  That conversation is for how you address the baseline, and you've neatly incapsulated the 5e playloop here.  I advocate for this playloop in the 5e forums, so it would be very strange for me not to do so here.However, this doesn't describe the play loop in PbtA or FitD games.  Superficially, (b) doesn't exist, and (c) operates very differently.  So, there's a difference, as I note above, in how these resolution systems enable or disable agency when the mechanics are used.  It's not at all the same thing as GM fiat when the mechanics are engaged, or, more precisely, it depends on how the system says the GM can deploy the mechanics.  In 5e, it's still GM decides, all the way down.</blockquote>

Verification