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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9066542" data-attributes="member: 6785785">If you're going to tell them it's high and hard to hit, why not just say the number? The number is to the player as hard to hit is to the character. There's nothing to be gained by not sharing that number.Having said that, ACs aren't the important thing in the grand scheme of things, I don't think. But it shows an overall reluctance to share information. And information is the foundation of player agency. That's all fine! Anything that can gain information for the players is good. Personally, I just tell them a lot of that stuff. In many cases, there's nothing to be gained by not identifying a monster or sharing information that may be relevant. The players are relying on me to the the full spectrum of what their characters can perceive and intuit from any situation... I'm never going to be able to do that job 100%, so why not make it easier by sharing information? If something truly would be hidden, that's something different... but otherwise, I tend to try and over-inform my players. I want there to be an abundance of information.I honestly haven't really commented on your specific scenario from the OP because I think it's better to establish some foundational elements first. From the gist of it, I got the impression that some players took that to be something they were "supposed" to do.It depends on what you want the play experience to be like. If you're going to play Alien or Call of Cthulhu, agency isn't going to be a priority. Other types of games have different ways to allow agency. I think the best thing you can do for the purpose of this conversation is to imagine player agency as it relates to chess. As a player, I have agency in chess. That doesn't mean there aren't limits on what I can do... each piece has its own moves and I have to stick to those, and I can make one move before my opponent goes, and so on. What's key is that I know how the opponent's pieces work as well, and they're all visible to me. There is no hidden information. I don't move my knight in front of one of the opponent's pawns and watch as he moves forward and takes my knight, saying "That pawn was a rook in disguise... agency, son!" The state of the game is set. I understand the rules. I know the risks, or can see them, before I make a move. I can act knowing that whatever happens as a result was knowable to me. Now, apply this to RPGs. Think about how the GM keeping information or changing the process of play on a whim would translate to chess. O any other game. Player agency requires that we consider the game. It's about the player taking part in the game.I think different games have different limits on agency, but I don't think that means that there's a spectrum in the sense of like 1 to 10. There can be a social contract about a lot of things. I have no idea what the player of the bard knew or thought would happen, or why he thought it was reasonable to jump into the pit, or what other options may have existed to jumping in the pit, or if he was able to determine if there were zombies down there, or any other dangers, or if he tried to do so, or any number of other factors. I cannot even begin to really assess that situation.</blockquote>

Verification