Do Random Tables Reduce Player Agency?

[Micah Sweet]

I had a thought and couldn't find an appropriate existing thread.

Does the use of random tables in play reduce player agency in gameplay? I am specifically talking about generative tables used to provide inspiration or even outright game elements to the GM when the PCs explore an otherwise undefined area.

Allow me to use an example: the PCs are heading from Southron to Northlund and can choose to take either the long but safe road or the faster but more dangerous road. Importantly, they don't know the mechanics behind those two road choices.

The rules (GM developed or otherwise) say that the chances of a negative encounter are double on the fast road -- but literally nothing else is defined before rolling.

If the PCs only have the barest information about potential difficulties -- thd fast road is "more dangerous" whatever that means-- are they being robbed of agency specifically as compared to a more carefully crafted route and potential dangers?

Let's assume that the description given to the PCs is equivalent, but yhe potential table roll results are much more varied from a challenge perspective than the designed routes.

What do you think?

No. If there's no reason they would have more specific information on which to make a choice, and the actual encounter (or lack thereof) isn't chosen based on which way the players go, then the players have just as much agency as anyone IRL would have in that situation. Which is all the agency they need IMO.

 

[Micah Sweet]

It seems like if the players should make informed choices, they ought to be made aware of the mechanics behind them.

I'd rather not be made aware of the mechanics. They don't matter to the PC, why should they matter to me?

 

[Micah Sweet]

A further thought:

Are we talking about agency in respect of colour/flavour text? Then if the players choose the swamp road rather than the desert road, it would seem rude to present encounters with dust-themed stuff rather than slimy mud stuff. But that seems like a pretty modest sort of agency.

If we're talking about agency in respect of meaningful game outcomes, then then choosing fast-and-more-dangerou road A over slow-and-safer B is meaningless until we know what's at stake in the choice. And given that D&D will almost always end up in a fight at some point, the fact that on path A your fight will come after 2 in-game days, while on path B it will take 4 in-game days, doesn't seem to matter (again, that's mere colour). So the choice of A vs B again itself looks like mere colour. At least until we have some understanding of why it matters that the PCs get to a certain place in a certain time.

The assumption of a fight is yours, not the campaign's.

 

[Cadence]

No. If there's no reason they would have more specific information on which to make a choice, and the actual encounter (or lack thereof) isn't chosen based on which way the players go, then the players have just as much agency as anyone IRL would have in that situation. Which is all the agency they need IMO.

I think this is an important point. Even if it feels separate from the question in the thread title it's good to have it brought up.

One question is how much agency do players in the game (ttrpg, tabletop, video) have. Another is if it is the appropriate amount of agency for that game to do what it needs to (be enjoyable, catch the genre, etc).

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think there's a sliding scale at play - to have agency, players must have the information to make meaningful decisions. The better the information they have, the more meaningful those choices, and the more agency they have.

That being the case, the use of random tables does indeed reduce their agency, at least somewhat.

That said, while it's definitely a good thing for players to have agency, I'm far from convinced that they should have total agency. It's valid to expect them to have to make some decisions based on imperfect, or even no, information.

(Incidentally, the example in the OP also provides a false dichotomy - do they take the quick and dangerous road, or the slow and safer one? But they have other options - stay where they are, find a different way to travel, or perform research to determine how and why one route is more dangerous than the other. That last option shouldn't be overlooked, and if done successfully should indicate that the dangers appear to be similar in type but double as frequent on the more dangerous route.)

True, but research takes time, which increases the value of the fast road, so that would need to be factored in.

 

[Micah Sweet]

No not that the need to know what the encounters are, just that some information, even if its just description of terrain is probably needed beyond just 'dangerous path'. Even something as simple as "the shorter road will take you down into the swamp and well the creatures there arent too friendly." PCs the asking the locals about 'what kinds of creatures?" would then be a likely next bit of rp

DnD is a game of imagination, so I'd at least give a few rumors to trigger the players imagination. Although putting a black dragon in my earlier response was probably a bit overkill

What if there's a black dragon in that swamp? Should there be no chance of encountering it?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Assuming that there is a time pressure that the characters are aware of, the players in OP's scenario have agency, albeit the decision is hardly a nuanced one.

Why one might think random charts might reduce agency has to do with when the information is generated. If the stuff is randomised (or just improvised) at the moment the characters are about to encounter it, this precludes any possibility of gaining information about it beforehand.

In my D&D game I often foreshadow things and the characters try to seek information about locations/events/people/monsters/etc before encountering them to be better prepared.* Now, sure, sometimes information gathering fails, or the situation just is such that no information can reasonably be available. But it is hella lot likely that the information is gained, if the information actually exists in the GMs head at the moment it is sought!

(*And then forget their preparations half the time...)

 

[Cadence]

Why one might think random charts might reduce agency has to do with when the information is generated. If the stuff is randomised (or just improvised) at the moment the characters are about to encounter it, this precludes any possibility of gaining information about it beforehand.

It feels like investigating an area and what could be there at a certain time should trigger the random monster roll if it hadn't been done already.


Similarly as the players approach the roll should be made by the earliest time something on the random monster table would have left clues for passive perception as they approach (foot prints, smell, sound, waste, etc...).

If the players are opening the long locked thick adamantine door to the caves, they used their scrying spells earlier [edit: on something else], and the room beyond is used as a way station by things from the underdark, does it matter in any way when the current resident was generated? (Thinking through the example, there are a lot of ifs there )

 

[Crimson Longinus]

It feels like investigating an area and what could be there at a certain time should trigger the random monster roll if it hadn't been done already.


Similarly as the players approach the roll should be made by the earliest time something on the random monster table would have left clues for passive perception as they approach (foot prints, smell, sound, waste, etc...).

Sure. But you can seek information without going near "the encounter area." Read books, scry, talk to people and/or animals who might have been there, or failing that gather rumours etc.

If the players are opening the long locked thick adamantine door to the caves, they used their scrying spells earlier, and the room beyond is used as a way station by things from the underdark, does it matter in any way when the current resident was generated? [Thinking through the example, there are a lot of ifs there ]

Well, presumably you need to generate the contents of the room at the latest when the characters scry the room.

 

[Reynard]

Interesting, I've never heard of random encounters beings handled this way. The closest I've done was used random tables to help prep before game, but I usually just roll and use random encounters one at a time at the table. How do you handle it if the players pivot and change the plan?

For example, let's assume they take the fast road, but after 2 bandit encounters they decide the road is too heavily patrolled and decide to go back to the slow path (or maybe go off-road to try and find a shortcut). Do you take another break while you generate the encounters for the new area? What about the previous encounters? Let's say the shortcut doesn't work out and they return to the fast road. Do you reuse the existing encounters or roll new? If the shortcut works out but they decide on the return trip to take the fast road, would you roll new encounters or use the ones you already rolled? I'm honestly curious about how this works.

90% of GMing is responding to players pivoting, so I don't see why it would be a problem. the first set of encounter rolls established something taht was true in the game world. It doesn't stop being true because the players choose to do something different. It remaisn true as long as it makes sense for it to be so. For example, if one of the random encounters was a goblin ambush, it is reasonable to think that the goblins will camp there waiting for victims for a day or two, but beyond that the encounter probably "clears." But if it was a giant spider lair (or whatever) that thing probably remains in place for a longer period of time.

Now, once the PCs pivot once I might roll one encounter at a time after because the players have shown me that they are likely to change tacts. It is inefficient to roll everything at once in that case, and the benefit of being able to present something a little more coherent is lost.