Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Retros_x" data-source="post: 9127433" data-attributes="member: 7033171">No. That is just bad DMing / bad design. If a DM communicates a path is safe, they should NOT roll on a table that lead to dangerous encounters. It should just be safe. But you if you still want to have a random table, you could roll on a &quot;non-combat/fluff encounter table&quot;. Than you still have random events without violating the premise that informed your players decision.&nbsp;In this thread were many examples stated of:1) Scenarios with random tables that had no bad impact on player agency2) Scenarios with random that had bad impact on player agency3) Static scenarios that had bad impact on player agendy (classic railroad)4) Static scenarios that had no bad impact on player agencyIt is just logical to conclude that if you have no variance or you have variance has NO general impact on player agency. There is no causality, there is not even correlation between random tables and player agency. Because that is just HOW you design the challenges, these are tools in your toolbox. What you make with these tools, your actual encounter/scenario design that you come up with affects player agency. And your DMing is what affects player agency. Do the informed decisions of the player have consequences and impact the world, is the game truly interactive, these are the questions regarding player agency. And no &quot;informed decision&quot; does not mean that your players have 100% clearance on what will happen exactly.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Retros_x, post: 9127433, member: 7033171"] No. That is just bad DMing / bad design. If a DM communicates a path is safe, they should NOT roll on a table that lead to dangerous encounters. It should just be safe. But you if you still want to have a random table, you could roll on a "non-combat/fluff encounter table". Than you still have random events without violating the premise that informed your players decision. In this thread were many examples stated of: 1) Scenarios with random tables that had no bad impact on player agency 2) Scenarios with random that had bad impact on player agency 3) Static scenarios that had bad impact on player agendy (classic railroad) 4) Static scenarios that had no bad impact on player agency It is just logical to conclude that if you have no variance or you have variance has NO general impact on player agency. There is no causality, there is not even correlation between random tables and player agency. Because that is just HOW you design the challenges, these are tools in your toolbox. What you make with these tools, your actual encounter/scenario design that you come up with affects player agency. And your DMing is what affects player agency. Do the informed decisions of the player have consequences and impact the world, is the game truly interactive, these are the questions regarding player agency. And no "informed decision" does not mean that your players have 100% clearance on what will happen exactly. [/QUOTE]

Verification