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

[pemerton]

I see the same thing that I saw in 4e's skill challenges, that what I actually say doesn't really matter. You have different options you can use but they are still just options that are resolved with the roll of the dice.

Did you read my post 6473 that replied to you?

 

[pemerton]

In a 4e skill challenge, what you say matters because it affects the fiction and then the relevant skill being rolled - the outcome between "threatening a street ganger to get info about the cult leader" vs "bribing a street ganger to get info about the cult leader" vs "shadowing the street ganger to his meeting with the cult leader" is fundamentally different fiction, scenes on success/fail, and skills being used. Plus you know, the GM can always deploy a +/-2 in response to fictional statements that make a situation better or worse, or say "oh, I'm going to use my Hard DC here because your approach is pretty tricky!"

Here's an actual play illustration of your point:

The PCs erected a magic circle around the Mausoleum of the Raven Queen, in order to prevent anyone from entering it and potentially learning her true name (backstory here); then rested; then scried on the tarrasque, which they knew to have recently begun marauding in the mortal world, identifying its location and noting that it was being observed by maruts. They decided that, to return to the mortal world to confront the tarrasque they would first teleport to their abandoned Thundercloud Tower, and then take that with them through another conjured portal and fly it to where the tarrasque is.

<snip>

When the PCs step through the portal from their resting place to the top of the tower, they find that it is not where they left it - on the disintegrating 66th layer of the Abyss - but rather in the palace of Yan-C-Bin on the Elemental Chaos. This brought the PCs, and especially the chaos sorcerer, into discussion with the djinni who had retaken possession of the tower and were repurposing it for the coming Dusk War. Mechanically, this situation was resolved as a skill challenge.

Sirrajadt, the leader of the djinni, explained that the djinni were finally breaking free of the imprisonment they had suffered after fighting for their freedom the last time (ie with the primordials against the gods in the Dawn War), and were not going to be re-imprisoned or bound within the Lattice of Heaven, and hence were gearing up to fight again in the Dusk War. He further explained that only Yan-C-Bin (Prince of Evil Air Elementals) and the Elder Elemental Eye could lead them to victory in the Dusk War.

The PCs both asserted their power (eg the paladin pointed out that the reason the djinni have been released from their prisons is because the PCs killed Torog, the god of imprisonment), and denied the necessity for a coming Dusk War, denouncing warmongers on both sides (especially the Elder Elemental Eye, whom Sirrajadt was stating was the only being who could guarantee the Djinni their freedom) and announcing themselves as a "third way", committed to balancing the chaos against the heavens and ensuring the endurance of the mortal world.

Sirrajadt was insisting that the PCs accompany him to meet Yan-C-Bin, declaring that mercy would be shown to all but the sorcerer. (The reason for this is that the chaos sorcerer - who is a Primordial Adept and Resurgent Primordial - has long been a servant of Chan, the Queen of Good Air Elementals, who sided with the gods during the Dawn War and is resolutely opposed to the Prince of Evil Air Elementals; hence the sorcerer is a sworn enemy of Yan-C-Bin.) As the PCs continued to debate the point and explain their "third way" reasoning (mechanically, getting closer to success in the skill challenge), Sirrajadt - sufficiently unsettled by their claims - invited them all to resolve the matter in conversation with Yan-C-Bin, who moreso than him would be able to explain the situation. The PCs therefore went to meet Yan-C-Bin himself, as guests and not as prisoners - not even the sorcerer.

Yan-C-Bin greeted them, but mocked the sorcerer and his service to Chan. There was some back and forth, and some of the same points were made. Then the PC fighter/cleric Eternal Defender, who has recently taken up the divine portfolio of imprisonment (which position became vacant after the PCs killed Torog), spoke. Both in the fiction and at the table this was the pivotal moment. The player gave an impassioned and quite eloquent speech, which went for several minutes with his eyes locked on mine. (We tend to be quite a causal table as far as performance, in-character vs third person description of one's PC vs out-of-character goes.) He explained (in character) that he would personally see to it that no djinni would be unjustly imprisoned, if they now refrained from launching the Dusk War; but that if they acted rashly and unjustly they could look forward to imprisonment or enslavement forever.

The player rolled his Intimidate check (with a +2 bonus granted by me because of his speech, far more impassioned and "in character" than is typical for our pretty laid-back table) and succeeded. It didn't persuade Yan-C-Bin - his allegiance to the Elder Elemental Eye is not going to be swayed by a mere godling - but the players' goal wasn't to persaude Yan-C-Bin of the merits of their third way, but rather to avoid being imprisoned by him and to sway the djinni. Which is exacty what happened: this speech sufficiently impressed the djinni audience that Yan-C-Bin could not just ignore it, and hence he grudgingly acquiesced to the PCs' request, agreeing to let the PCs take the Thundercloud Tower and go and confront the tarrasque - but expressing doubt that they would realise their "third way", and with a final mocking remark that they would see for whom the maruts with the tarrasque were acting.

 

[pemerton]

A perception check or knowledge/history check is not an emotional state check.

I was replying to a post that said that players of 5e D&D get to decide their PCs' mental capabiltiies.

 

[pemerton]

I think this is where you're in what is very foreign territory for most of us: the idea of two players GMing each other (or sharing the GM role) at the same time in the same fiction.

It's also very confusing; as when you say "Alicia's player called for the Steel test" what you really mean is "The (other) GM called for the Steel test".

Do you mean when I say this:

Then her player, wearing the GM hat, insisted that I make a Steel check to commit cold-blooded murder.

What's the confusing bit?

 

[pemerton]

These are vastly different in one key way:

In the murder example, the inability to act is (by system decree) due to something internal to the character: he hesitates.

In the dragon example, the inability to act is due to something external to the character, namely a bloody great dragon tail knocking him flat.

The argument being made is that, barring (again, external!) magical or supernatural effects, things internal to the character are and should remain entirely the purview of the player.

It's not an argument, though - it's just an expression of an aesthetic preference.

 

[pemerton]

It is meta in the sense that it is not from the PCs point of view, but rather initiated by the GM at the Player's command before the game begins.

What's the "it"?

I mean, what the player is doing is building and playing their PC. I assume that doesn't count as "meta", given that it (presumably) happens in your RPGing as well.

And then what the GM is doing is - as per the rules of the game - having regard to certain aspects of the PC build in making their decisions. Is that the GM being meta? Isn't the GM allowed to do that? If you are GMing 3E D&D, and a player builds a ranger with Orcs as a favoured enemy, and so that means you as GM decide to use some Orcs as NPCs, does that count as the player exercising "meta agency"?

Is it "meta agency" every time the GM makes a decision because they think it will lead to something the players will find interesting and enjoyable?

 

[AlViking]

Did you read my post 6473 that replied to you?

You can adjust the target number but you still need to roll. I should have said that better.

 

[hawkeyefan]

How is a mechanic that impacts freedom to control your character not impacting agency? I have no issue with these mechanics (I actually wish people were more open to them because I think they can enhance things like horror RPGs a lot), but that seems to pretty much be text book agency disruption

It depends on the context. If the loss of control of character is a known possibility of play, and the player is aware of this and makes decisions accordingly, then it’s a negative consequence of play.

Has the player lost full control of the character? Yes. Does this mean the player has no agency? I don’t think so.

What I said was that I wouldn't learn anything about my character. I already new there was X% chance of failure. If I attack an orc I know I may not hit so it's not a surprise and I don't learn anything when it happened, just that there are numbers on my D20 lower than what I need to roll. It's not revelatory, it's not revealing to actually have to roll dice it's just ... boring.

Perhaps in your opinion it’s boring. Others may find it interesting. Either way, we do learn something. In the example @pemerton gave, we learned that his character wasn’t as ruthless as he’d believed.

That form of revelation may not be to your liking… that’s fine. I don’t disagree with your preference, just your description of it as not learning something.

If you like it, that's fine. But instead you have to tell me that I'm wrong and explain why, except that I don't agree with your reasoning which you seem to refuse to accept.

- edit typo

I disagreed with your description. However, since you don’t play those games, it’s not an actual issue, is it?

 

[Faolyn]

How do you count the "impose a condition" case?

Sorry, I should have been clearer: Using in-game fiction.

 

[Bedrockgames]

It depends on the context. If the loss of control of character is a known possibility of play, and the player is aware of this and makes decisions accordingly, then it’s a negative consequence of play.

Has the player lost full control of the character? Yes. Does this mean the player has no agency? I don’t think so.

Then you are using a very flawed definition of agency