D&D General Renamed Thread: "The Illusion of Agency"

[Bill Zebub]

It is tragic to me that this argument conflates "mechanics" with "rolling dice to resolve uncertainty."

I get what you're saying, but "tragic" seems....dramatic.

But, sure, I could have chosen and defined terms better. Maybe "RNG-based mechanics"?

My gameplay needs for a secret door are that (a) not everyone notices it, but (b) there's a chance for anyone to notice it, and (c) I want players to have "observant" characters who are better at noticing it. I want to be able to say, "Llyrd the Elven Ranger notices the secret door with their keen eyes."

The solution you've got here is essentially to "telegraph" (with some descriptive element) and then reward a player who pulls at that thread.

That works OK, but I think that the dodge of the die roll here happens at what you decide to telegraph and to who. In a straight standard scenario, the descriptive elements (footprints, a map or journal, etc.) would be revealed based on d20 rolls for Perception or Investigation. What are you replacing that with? Just announcing it to everyone? Because that has some negative effects on those who want to play "observant" characters - they don't actually play as any more observant than anyone else.

That's something that the d20 roll, with its modifiers for proficiency and Wisdom or Intelligence, provides for very well.

If we want to eliminate the d20 roll, and still provide players the ability to make their character "more observant than others," what mechanic creates that feeling?

Genuinely curious, because I think a d20 roll to find information is actually pretty kludgy and unsatisfying, but I don't have a great replacement for it, either. I wonder what games based on this kind of mechanic do (detective games, etc.).

Agreed this is an issue, and discussed it upthread. It's a problem in games (like D&D) that requires you to invest resources (attribute points, skill points, even feats, etc.) and gives you the choice between combat and non-combat abilities. And I don't claim to have a perfect answer. But what I do do is factor that investment into adjudication. I'm not arguing against any use of skills and rolling dice, but rather avoiding going straight to the dice without any narrative description, and without costs of failure.

So here's an example scenario that, I think, accomplishes all of these goals:

Player A: "I want to threaten the old man that if he doesn't give us the key, we'll expose his affair with his business partner's daughter."
DM: "Oooh...cold! Ok, that will be a DC 15 Cha (Intimidation) check, and whether you succeed or fail he is going to be pissed, but if you fail you'll have made a real enemy. And need I remind you what his business is?"
Player A: "Oh, um...I'm -1 to Intimidation. Maybe Susie should do it."
Player B (Susie): "I crack my whip on the floor and lick my lips...."

 

[Bill Zebub]

More of a discussion point. Your examples lead me to believe you are not the "thousand questions, but only one correct one" skill play type of GM. Though, this suggestion gives that type a bit more power than id like.

Rules are better guidelines because folks will want substantial and numerous examples. This is a little too in the weeds for my taste. Folks who enjoy organized play will not have a good time with the vagueness for example.

I guess I want to reiterate that I'm not here to argue for one style of play, or try to convert people. Rather I was hoping to be pushed with challenging scenarios. "How would you handle it if..." etc. (And if that comes from people who are skeptical about this approach, and want to stump me with really hard ones, so much the better!)

Certainly there are players who have gotten used to, and prefer, the clarity of resolving challenges by rolling their skills, and are interested in doing something different, or fear that if they do it becomes some form of "pixel bitching" or "Mother May I?" And I get that, because I've played with DMs who turn it into exactly that.

If we can both agree that there are both good and bad examples of doing this, the way I would like to engage here is not "how can RPGs be Bad-DM-proofed?" but rather "how can DMs who want to run games this way get better at it?"

 

[Fifth Element]

It seems that my post was much too long and few (yet) have actually read beyond the provocative title.

I'll keep hoping.

Could be a good lesson in that: don't use deliberately provocative titles. Don't blame others if they respond to something you wrote that way.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Could be a good lesson in that: don't use deliberately provocative titles. Don't blame others if they respond to something you wrote that way.

Maybe I should have tried, "Why you should always store a banana with your favorite dice."

 

[Aldarc]

Could be a good lesson in that: don't use deliberately provocative titles. Don't blame others if they respond to something you wrote that way.

Aye. "Prove me wrong" is pretty confrontational and comes across as someone uninterested in a good faith engagement as the person likely has already made up their mind and not open to alternatives, particularly given its association with a meme featuring someone of that sort.

 

[payn]

I guess I want to reiterate that I'm not here to argue for one style of play, or try to convert people. Rather I was hoping to be pushed with challenging scenarios. "How would you handle it if..." etc. (And if that comes from people who are skeptical about this approach, and want to stump me with really hard ones, so much the better!)

Certainly there are players who have gotten used to, and prefer, the clarity of resolving challenges by rolling their skills, and are interested in doing something different, or fear that if they do it becomes some form of "pixel bitching" or "Mother May I?" And I get that, because I've played with DMs who turn it into exactly that.

If we can both agree that there are both good and bad examples of doing this, the way I would like to engage here is not "how can RPGs be Bad-DM-proofed?" but rather "how can DMs who want to run games this way get better at it?"

My advice then is make it interesting. Instead of simply figuring out how to get into treasure room (if its already been decided the players will) complicate it. You can open the door but the room is trapped. Failing to figure out how to work around the trap sets it off and then you get the treasure. Thats a lot more interesting and worth the time, IMO, then just opening a door.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I guess I want to reiterate that I'm not here to argue for one style of play, or try to convert people. Rather I was hoping to be pushed with challenging scenarios. "How would you handle it if..." etc. (And if that comes from people who are skeptical about this approach, and want to stump me with really hard ones, so much the better!)

Scenario:
The PCs are locked in hard fought battle in a 15 foot wide hallway with a group of guards in the tunnel system beneath a town. On the ceiling, if anyone bothers to look up, is a retracted portcullis essentially in the middle of said battle. The mechanism to operate the portcullis is in a concealed alcove 5' north of the portcullis on the guards' "side" of the battle. Meanwhile, an unarmed member of the guards faction is heard behind the party - perhaps an advisor to the nefarious ruler of the town who heard the ruckus and came around the corner to see what was up.

Feel free to add specific DM narrated details to the scenario that represent telegraphing...

Questions:
1. how might a character notice the portcullis?
2. how might a character determine how to operate the portcullis?
3. what might a character say to the advisor to help the situation?
4. something else non-combat related that you imagine could happen in the scenario and how it would be resolved.

 

[Dausuul]

I don't want to derail the thread too much, but I think the reason dice work well for combat is because it involves so many rolls, so there's excitement around the ebb and flow, and there are ways for players to react and adjust, and decisions to take along the way to improve their chances.

That last item is the key. Combat presents meaningful decisions. Each round, you make choices about where to move, which resources and abilities to use, which opponents to target, which allies to buff or heal, etc.

Many of the die rolls in combat could be eliminated and it would still work. For instance, many DMs don't bother rolling damage for monsters and just use the listed average. (The large number of die rolls in combat does serve a statistical function, smoothing out the impact of chance so that small modifiers can have a cumulative impact. But you could achieve the same goal by using bigger modifiers and fewer rolls.)

Just adding more dice rolls accomplishes nothing but slowing down the game. And this is a major problem with noncombat scenarios in D&D: Often, the game mechanics present no meaningful choices, so we use "Uh, make a skill check" as a cheap, easy substitute. It makes players feel they have agency without actually giving them any.

What OP is saying is to remove that option, forcing yourself to construct a scenario with meaningful decisions -- or else accept that no meaningful decision exists, decide the outcome, and skip the illusion of agency.

I'm not a hundred percent sold yet, but it's certainly worth thinking about.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I get what you're saying, but "tragic" seems....dramatic.

But, sure, I could have chosen and defined terms better. Maybe "RNG-based mechanics"?

Heh, it's just that the "D&D needs noncombat mechanics!" discussions I often engage in get grabbed by the d20 mechanic and become about that specific mechanic rather than about what non-combat mechanics can look like more broadly. I try really hard to create a space between the binary of "we need combat rules for social interaction!" and "social interaction is just freeform!"

This thread falls squarely in that middle ground.

Agreed this is an issue, and discussed it upthread. It's a problem in games (like D&D) that requires you to invest resources (attribute points, skill points, even feats, etc.) and gives you the choice between combat and non-combat abilities. And I don't claim to have a perfect answer. But what I do do is factor that investment into adjudication. I'm not arguing against any use of skills and rolling dice, but rather avoiding going straight to the dice without any narrative description, and without costs of failure.

I believe this is how the game advises you to play it already. No changes needed to accomplish this.

I would say that having a list of skills on the character sheet can work against this intended gameplay loop, since that can often feel like a list of buttons to push that let you roll dice and get a result. But would you eliminate the skill list? And what might you replace it with?

So here's an example scenario that, I think, accomplishes all of these goals:

Player A: "I want to threaten the old man that if he doesn't give us the key, we'll expose his affair with his business partner's daughter."
DM: "Oooh...cold! Ok, that will be a DC 15 Cha (Intimidation) check, and whether you succeed or fail he is going to be pissed, but if you fail you'll have made a real enemy. And need I remind you what his business is?"
Player A: "Oh, um...I'm -1 to Intimidation. Maybe Susie should do it."
Player B (Susie): "I crack my whip on the floor and lick my lips...."

I don't think this scenario is much different than...

Player A: "I intimidate him with an Intimidation check" (rolls, gets a middling result)
DM: "OK, what do you say?"
Player A: "I want to threaten the old man that if he doesn't give us the key, we'll expose his affair with his business partner's daughter."
DM: "Ah, okay. He doesn't seem worried. He says, 'Who is she more likely to trust, her close friend and confidante, or a group of motely adventurers?'"
Player B: "Oh, maybe I should try, I've got a +4 to Intimidate. I crack my whip on the floor and lick my lips..."

...is it?

 

[Bill Zebub]

My advice then is make it interesting. Instead of simply figuring out how to get into treasure room (if its already been decided the players will) complicate it. You can open the door but the room is trapped. Failing to figure out how to work around the trap sets it off and then you get the treasure. Thats a lot more interesting and worth the time, IMO, then just opening a door.

Agreed, and it should scale based on the size of the 'reward'. E.g., if the secret door leads to an exit that might be useful later, then maybe just discovering it is enough. If it's a major treasure room, I would add additional complexities: door is hard to open, traps, etc.

As I said elsewhere, I prefer to do traps the same way I do secret doors: either easy to find and hard to bypass, or hard to find (but still telegraphed!) and easy to bypass.

I mean, this isn't the movies, so I don't think there's a perfect solution. Eventually players realize that if you include a feature ("there are scorch marks...") they know what's going on. But replacing that with dice rolls, or passive Perception checks, has never been satisfying to me, either. For years I did it, but never liked it.

I believe that at its core, the 'game' part about the game should be making hard decisions. A totally generic "I search for traps" followed by a die roll, with no consequence for failure, just isn't a hard decision. Or, the only decision is "how much of our game time should I take up with rolling to find traps and secret doors?"