D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[hawkeyefan]

But my long-term experience is that very few (if any!) players can or will completely ignore meta-information that their characters don't know when deciding the next actions of said characters.

When rolling for an in-game unknown (e.g. finding a secret door, or gathering info) a player-side roll gives them meta-information their characters wouldn't have. Did we fail to find a secret door because we simply missed it or because there isn't one there to find should always be an in-character question on a failed search.

Who cares if they act on the meta-information? It's just information that's available to them. Let it be a hunch that the character has.

Also, if they fail a roll to find a secret door, who cares if they know it... they failed. They're not finding the secret door. Assuming you don't allow skill dog-piling.

I sure don't ignore it. Metagame is too important to the play experience.

Yeah, I find it fills in gaps of information that I fail to provide, and is almost always easily rationalized in some fictional way if necessary.

I mean, you don't get to dictate the type of agency I am talking about. Those of us on the sandbox side of things are talking about player agency through their character declarations and actions, not player agency over the game outside of their character.

That's one way, yes. It's not the type of agency I am talking about or that others advocating for sandbox play are talking about.

It's my stance that there's only one form of player agency.

The artificial division is about an accepted limit to player agency which people don't want to admit is a limit, even though they're pointing out that what they want and expect from play relies on that limit.

It's silly.

Character agency as in agency through character actions, which is fairly obvious from all the context we have been using regarding agency. It's just easier to differentiate between the two types of player agency if we use different terms.

Well, your post said that your google search turned up two types of agency, character and player agency. If character agency is that which is limited to a player being able to declare actions for his character... then player agency would seem to be what I'm talking about, no? How the player can influence the direction and outcome of play, aside from character agency.

I didn't think that's what you'd be advocating for, since every game I know that supports what you're calling player agency also supports character agency... and would therefore support more agency than a game that only allows character agency.

No, it doesn't go against it at all. For the living world to function, game time has to pass. What I am talking about, also clear through the context, is that reactive players won't do anything. So in real time the DM and players just sit there looking at one another. NOTHING IS HAPPENING. Since almost no gametime has elapsed, there's nothing for the living world to do.

Oh I'm sorry, I figure that rather than staring at each other like idiots, the GM would put the living world to use to do one of the things it's great at... have the world go on even when the PCs don't do anything. So that threat they ignored? Now it shows up. The gnoll pack they did nothing about has now hired some giants, and they attack the town. What do the players do then?

If nothing is happening, it's not just the players who've failed.

For something to happen, the DM needs to become proactive instead of reactive like he would be in sandbox play, so sandbox goes away. The world is still living. Things will still happen outside of the players, but the players will not be driving play in the same way as proactive sandbox players would.

In that moment, sure, but that's okay because they've essentially skipped their turn, and now the world is taking a turn. Hopefully, this conditions them to be more proactive, or at least active rather than just sitting there like lumps.

 

[zakael19]

Who cares if they act on the meta-information? It's just information that's available to them. Let it be a hunch that the character has.

Also, if they fail a roll to find a secret door, who cares if they know it... they failed. They're not finding the secret door. Assuming you don't allow skill dog-piling.



Yeah, I find it fills in gaps of information that I fail to provide, and is almost always easily rationalized in some fictional way if necessary.



It's my stance that there's only one form of player agency.

The artificial division is about an accepted limit to player agency which people don't want to admit is a limit, even though they're pointing out that what they want and expect from play relies on that limit.

It's silly.



Well, your post said that your google search turned up two types of agency, character and player agency. If character agency is that which is limited to a player being able to declare actions for his character... then player agency would seem to be what I'm talking about, no? How the player can influence the direction and outcome of play, aside from character agency.

I didn't think that's what you'd be advocating for, since every game I know that supports what you're calling player agency also supports character agency... and would therefore support more agency than a game that only allows character agency.




Oh I'm sorry, I figure that rather than staring at each other like idiots, the GM would put the living world to use to do one of the things it's great at... have the world go on even when the PCs don't do anything. So that threat they ignored? Now it shows up. The gnoll pack they did nothing about has now hired some giants, and they attack the town. What do the players do then?

If nothing is happening, it's not just the players who've failed.



In that moment, sure, but that's okay because they've essentially skipped their turn, and now the world is taking a turn. Hopefully, this conditions them to be more proactive, or at least active rather than just sitting there like lumps.

The implicit permission of a PBTA or FITD with its GM moves that say "when the players look to you for what happens next, do a thing" was really engaging for me to discover. And then when players ignore a clearly telegraphed problem, you do what you just said: show that the world has an opinion. Now the situation is worse, what do you do? That relationship you ignored, they're raising trouble for you. That ominous obelisk in the woods? Now the hunters are talking about demonic figures and one of them is missing. You kept on chatting after hearing rustling in the woods around you? Cool, out of the corner of your eye you see a feathered raptor exploding into a pounce.

Im terrible at actually writing out all my Threats & Grim Portents / Dooms though for the big picture moving things. Sigh. I need to work on that. But when done right, it lets you exploit your prep to show that world in motion, pressing up against the stuff the player's care about.

Edit: I'm not a big fan of FTID faction clocks though. Most of them are pretty uninteresting, I'd prefer a little less generic from them and a little more "open to tailor."

 

[Bedrockgames]

Who cares if they act on the meta-information? It's just information that's available to them. Let it be a hunch that the character has.

Also, if they fail a roll to find a secret door, who cares if they know it... they failed. They're not finding the secret door. Assuming you don't allow skill dog-piling.

But this immediately shows some of the agency issues it raises. I am not saying there is anything wrong with this approach, or that it is going to interrupt everyone's sense of agency. But both these cases could definitely be perceived by players in a sandbox as thwarting their agency. The first one is the GM effectively telling the player what they think. And the second one messes with it from two different places. On the one hand they know there is a secret door there but they can't act on that information. On the other hand, why can't they remain and keep trying?

I get this won't be an issue for lots of people. My point is just that, as with the mystery, more information isn't necessarily more agency, and in some cases, for some people, it is going to run counter to their sense of agency

 

[zakael19]

But this immediately shows some of the agency issues it raises. I am not saying there is anything wrong with this approach, or that it is going to interrupt everyone's sense of agency. But both these cases could definitely be perceived by players in a sandbox as thwarting their agency. The first one is the GM effectively telling the player what they think. And the second one messes with it from two different places. On the one hand they know there is a secret door there but they can't act on that information. On the other hand, why can't they remain and keep trying?

I get this won't be an issue for lots of people. My point is just that, as with the mystery, more information isn't necessarily more agency, and in some cases, for some people, it is going to run counter to their sense of agency

Can you expand a little more on this? Im really curious to understand how more information = less agency.

Like, I thought the whole point of a CoC style mystery is constraining the heck out of player agency to preserve uncertainty and that ineffable feeling that you're "solving" something.

 

[Faolyn]

There is no such rule in Burning Wheel, and I've not posted any such rule.

"Unless there is something at stake in the story you have created, don’t bother with the dice." There's nothing at stake when you're looking for something that should be right out in the open. Since the person wasn't in an area where a cup would be hidden, requiring a roll to see it is only pointless pedantry.

And you still haven't answered my two questions. This will be like the fourth time I've asked it. Do I need to ask it a fifth time? Is there a reason why you're not answering it?

And no, you have not once answered my questions. You've posted sections of rules and bits from your actual plays that are meaningless. I don't want quotes. I want your own words.

Remember, this tangent started because you claimed that BW can do things that D&D can't do or does badly--have intense, hefty, intimate conversations/discussions/arguments between PCs. But your refusal to answer my question strongly suggests that that's not the case. That these conversations/discussions/arguments boil down to a simple die roll rather than any rules that enhance actual roleplay, or that rely primarily on RP but then have a roll afterwards.

In fact, you've implied that the players aren't even supposed to RP this sort of discussion. They have to go straight to a duel of wits.

So I'm going to rephrase my question just a bit:

Since BW apparently doesn't want the players to roleplay a discussion and instead rely entirely on the dice to say whether or not the discussion had any effect, how can you describe this game as anything but dice-drive?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Can you expand a little more on this? Im really curious to understand how more information = less agency.

Like, I thought the whole point of a CoC style mystery is constraining the heck out of player agency to preserve uncertainty and that ineffable feeling that you're "solving" something.

I am not strictly speaking of CoC, as that has as its main focus being a horror game. The mystery element can be approached in different ways. I am talking about a style of mystery investigation adventure, which you might well encounter in CoC, but you don't have to. The point is for the players to solve a real mystery. Because you are challenging the player's skill in a mystery and for them to make meaningful choices, and to actually solve the mystery for real, you have to withhold information their characters would not have. They need to be able to interact with the mystery, find clues and put them together. That is a crucial aspect of agency in this style of mystery. We had a whole discussion on this in another thread. It was about as productive as this discussion

 

[zakael19]

"Unless there is something at stake in the story you have created, don’t bother with the dice." There's nothing at stake when you're looking for something that should be right out in the open. Since the person wasn't in an area where a cup would be hidden, requiring a roll to see it is only pointless pedantry.

And you still haven't answered my two questions. This will be like the fourth time I've asked it. Do I need to ask it a fifth time? Is there a reason why you're not answering it?

And no, you have not once answered my questions. You've posted sections of rules and bits from your actual plays that are meaningless. I don't want quotes. I want your own words.

Remember, this tangent started because you claimed that BW can do things that D&D can't do or does badly--have intense, hefty, intimate conversations/discussions/arguments between PCs. But your refusal to answer my question strongly suggests that that's not the case. That these conversations/discussions/arguments boil down to a simple die roll rather than any rules that enhance actual roleplay, or that rely primarily on RP but then have a roll afterwards.

In fact, you've implied that the players aren't even supposed to RP this sort of discussion. They have to go straight to a duel of wits.

So I'm going to rephrase my question just a bit:

Since BW apparently doesn't want the players to roleplay a discussion and instead rely entirely on the dice to say whether or not the discussion had any effect, how can you describe this game as anything but dice-drive?

For each move in Duel of Wits, the player must do the thing - "Speaking the Part." I mean, insofar as any game rule can force you to do things. And then you roll. Does that answer your question?

The point of the game is mechanize the back and forth of a verbal encounter, with each passage carrying weight both as character & in the mechanics. The roleplaying is directly fused with the outcome you desire, the same way your words typed out in this forum are fused with some sort of outcome in your head.

@pemerton correct me if I've misunderstood the rules.

 

[zakael19]

I am not strictly speaking of CoC, as that has as its main focus being a horror game. The mystery element can be approached in different ways. I am talking about a style of mystery investigation adventure, which you might well encounter in CoC, but you don't have to. The point is for the players to solve a real mystery. Because you are challenging the player's skill in a mystery and for them to make meaningful choices, and to actually solve the mystery for real, you have to withhold information their characters would not have. They need to be able to interact with the mystery, find clues and put them together. That is a crucial aspect of agency in this style of mystery. We had a whole discussion on this in another thread. It was about as productive as this discussion

Well sure, if your chosen play style centers on withheld information then clearly giving it is going to spoil things. But like, I'm not seeing the agency loss here so long as you said "my character searches around" or whatever. Does agency here to you require more than ideation in character? Like, if I as the GM am like "hey yeah, there's nothing here more to find." Does that to you reduce your agency as a player?

 

[Faolyn]

But what if a player knows and accepts that as a risk? That this is a possible consequence of play. And then, knowing that, they enter the situation anyway... and then the dice don't go their way. Does that change your view?

Some things to consider:

If not, then what about when a character in D&D is charmed or dominated? The character knows that Strahd is a vampire and can influence people with his undead abilities... and he and his companions choose to find and face Strahd... and the character is subsequently charmed. Does this mean the character has no agency?

At that moment of time, no. But don't forget, for Strahd to charm someone, conditions have to be met. To whit, the PC has to be within range and Strahd has to be able to see them. And most of the time, the PC has chosen to put themselves in that location.

But we've been talking about a game where, at any time, a PC or the GM can decide that another character must make a Steel roll--even though the conditions that pemerton himself cited as being required were not actually met (which are surprise, fear, pain, and wonderment--not anger, a need for vengeance, or anything like that), and even though the PC had traits that logically should mean he wouldn't hesitate when committing murder. And pemerton said that it would be perfectly acceptable for a player or GM to decide that another character would have to make certain tests because that the player or GM, out of character, didn't want the other character to succeed on their goal.

Meaning that this game allows metagaming and GM fiat to remove player agency, as opposed to a D&D-style charm effect, which is supposed to be entirely done within the fiction of the game.

What if the game asks the player to indicate what aspect of their character they'd like to see challenged during play? Like, if I select my character's courage at the start of play, is it then problematic for the GM to put me in situations that will reveal something about my courage? And if I wind up not being brave in some way... I fail a roll to act when afraid... is that a loss of agency?

What about in D&D when my character is reduced to 0 HP. Does that mean the character has no agency at all? Or does it mean that the agency is temporarily removed until the character can recover?



I was going off your previous comment which said you used "judgment" and didn't talk about techniques. I think what the techniques are and how consistently they're applied matters quite a bit.



Absolutely! I've said many times, I'm just explaining my thoughts on the topic.

 

[pemerton]

I like this "meta agency" term coined in this thread by I believe @robertsconley . That being player influence beyond what the PC themselves is capable of.

Consider a RPG - of which there are several - in which (i) players, as part of the build and play of their PCs, are expected/required to signal what their priorities are for their PCs, and (ii) the GM, in doing their work in relation to setting, situation and consequence, is expected to have regard to those player-determined priorities.

Is that "meta-agency" on the part of the players?