Do Random Tables Reduce Player Agency?

[Cadence]

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.

Right. I would include that in the second paragraph of stuff I was trying to get at.

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

Sorry, bad phrasing on my part. I meant they didn't have any scry spells left to check behind the door.

I think I'm agreeing with you for the most part.

 

[CreamCloud0]

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.

while you might not be able to learn of any specifics of the encounters beforehand wouldn't information like 'the mountain road is shorter than the coastal path but more powerful monsters reside there' [AKA: there'll be less encounter rolls but they'll be on a stronger monster table] still be enough information for players to make an informed decision?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Right. I would include that in the second paragraph of stuff I was trying to get at.

Sure, and thus the issue is averted. I just don't believe that this is how random encounter charts are traditionally used.

Sorry, bad phrasing on my part. I meant they didn't have any scry spells left to check behind the door.

Ah, I see! It might not matter. But then again, let me tell you about very similar situation that happened in my game recently. The characters were about to explore a dungeon that had been sealed for a long time and information was scarce. So what they did was to use food to attract local beaked rats*, which, as the characters correctly concluded, were small enough to enter the dungeon through the cracks and routinely did so. They questioned the rats using speak with animals and even bribed them to bring them bones from the dungeon to determine what sort of creatures lived there and how they had died.

(* Small monotremes fulfilling the ecological niche of a rat.)

I think I'm agreeing with you for the most part.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

while you might not be able to learn of any specifics of the encounters beforehand wouldn't information like 'the mountain road is shorter than the coastal path but more powerful monsters reside there' [AKA: there'll be less encounter rolls but they'll be on a stronger monster table] still be enough information for players to make an informed decision?

Sure. That is informed decision and there is agency there. I just think there is more agency if there is also a possibility of seeking information about what sort of powerful monsters there are and make preparations for facing them.

 

[kenada]

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

There are ways to communicate information without being mechanical if that’s what one prefers, but assuming (or preferring) one way or the other doesn’t affect the discussion that follows. I touch on this a bit in post #42.

 

[bloodtide]

I am sorry, but your example has nothing to do with robbing or gaining player agency. First of all you just assume that the DM rolls again. A lot of DM would let the results of the scout count.

And a lot of DMs would roll another check. And plenty of games have rules requiring another check too.

But even if they don't and roll again, its so easy to justify if HOURS happen between the scouting and the actual travel. In fact it was a choice by the player to scout before being ready to travel. But none of that matter because its actually not the randomness that changes the encounter, its the DM changing the encounter. I can easily see how a DM does exactly the same with a pre-designed encounter, to change it based on the players decision to come back hours later. It has nothing to do with using random tables for this change or not.

That was not the question.

Having a pre-designed route or having random encounters has no causal effect on player agency, how do you present it and what consequences players actions have, these are actually affecting player agency.

the over given example of player agency is the player knowing a set encounter is at a location and then chooses to avoid it.

You can't "avoid a random encounter with player agency" as the encounter does not exist until the dice are rolled.

Huh? Wha?
Things can change. What you see on the bridge now might very well not agree with what's there two hours from now, and this is in no way an affront to anyone's agency.

I get it does not make sense....but we are talking about Player Agency.

Remember Player Agency requires both the game not make sense in a Reality Simulation sense and for the game to be a much more Rule Focused Game Play.

And, as you can see, plenty of pro Player Agency people, say a second roll should never be made. Their thinking is: once a location is "looked at" or "scouted" it must never, ever change. Though, sure, they will say a "reasonable time"....though that "reasonable time" will be whatever benefits Player Agency.

But then you won't see a lot of rolling on random tables in a high player agency game anyway.

This strikes me as a bit strange. Why would the PC assume that just because the bridge was empty once it would be empty hours later?

Player Agency. For the players to have any agency in the game things must remain static.

Now if they asked the local guides/guards/scouts if there were any monsters or bad guys spotted within a days travel (or did some other more thorough checking that would actually preclude the monster showing up), then that would feel different to me.

Note this would not matter if your rolling on a random table. Every NPC in the game could swear and sign an offical court document and say "there are no monsters at that location". But if you then roll a check and monsters are there: they simply appear out of thin air.

But otherwise, doesn't bad stuff essentially happen at random in real life the way folks often think about it? (Yes, the road home is usually safe, that's why we drive it. Yes there is sometimes a really unsafe driver on it anyway).

But, for a high player agency game you can't have "too much" of the "bad stuff" happen as then the players will feel they have no agency.

 

[Cadence]

Player Agency. For the players to have any agency in the game things must remain static.

Says who since when? I'm pretty sure that's not how most actual game designers view it?

Note this would not matter if your rolling on a random table. Every NPC in the game could swear and sign an offical court document and say "there are no monsters at that location". But if you then roll a check and monsters are there: they simply appear out of thin air.

Why are your game world's NPCs such liars?

 

[Golroc]

For me there are a number of benefits from randomizing some element of gameplay (using one or more tables, or some other random method):

1) Uncertainty and excitement. Regardless of whether it is rational or not, most humans react to random elements differently than elements at the discretion of the GM. Knowing that something was generated randomly affects our perception.

2) Simulation. While hardly realistic, a random table can simulate the chance of various events / elements. This adds a greater feeling of verisimilitude for the players so inclined.

3) Emergent creativity. Using randomly generated components as a springboard we can sometimes come up with something more interesting than we might otherwise have been able to - or simply come up with something outside of the usual tropes we draw on.

4) Ritual value. RPGs have a ritual side that I believe is often overlooked. Rolling a die and consulting a table is a ritual which can have significance to the participants and enrichen the game experience simply by being observed.

There are downsides too - tables are often limited in variety and scope. They can result in unfair / problematic outcomes. They can result in nonsensical results. It might not be clear how much discretion can/should be applied by the GM.

But as for agency? No, I don't believe they detract from agency as a default. Some players may prefer to minimize random elements - or to limit them to specific parts of the system. For those players using random tables will reduce agency. For some GMs using tables may reduce agency (if they replace GM discretion). But overall, I think the use of tables is likely to be part of the social contract, and thus either neutral or positive in regard to agency.

 

[Reynard]

There is no such thing as "GM agency" (at least in traditional RPGs like D&D) and I find it weird that multiple people have brought it up.

 

[Cadence]

There is no such thing as "GM agency" (at least in traditional RPGs like D&D) and I find it weird that multiple people have brought it up.

Are they a participant in the game (in which case it feels like it is something to talk about) or are they merely an umpire or referee?