Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[pemerton]

My point is that "DM Decides" allows for as much player agency as "The Dice Decide."

I don't know what you mean by the dice decide.

The main role of dice that I know of in a RPG is similar to what @chaochou has pointed to: if a player declares an action for his/her PC - ie puts forward a candidate narration of what happens - the roll of the dice determines whether or not that action succeeds, which is to say whether or not that narration comes true.

The GM deciding what happens is the GM making all the choices about narration, perhaps taking suggestions along the way.

I don't see how those two things are comparable in the degree of agency they give to the player. To me, the first looks like the playing of a game, where dice are rolled to work out who gets to decide what happens next. The second one looks to me like a person telling a story.

something being impossible doesn't remove player agency any more than failing a die-roll does, the way I see it. (And I don't think failure negates player agency.)

It's the difference between (i) staking things on a coin toss, and losing and (ii) having no chance of getting what you want.

I think those are quite different things.

I try to manage it so the setting has an objective existence outside the PCs

I'm not sure what this means. The setting is a work of fiction. It is authored. So are you saying that you author bits independent of what the players have their PCs do? That's not uncommon in RPGing, though not essential - a few weeks ago when I ran a session of Wuthering Heights the setting was independent of the PCs only in the sense that it was mid-to-late-19th century London and so at one point we looked at a map to see how long it would take to get from Soho to the Thames.

But all the details that mattered - the bookshop, the socialist reading group, the prison, the prisoners, the salient NPCs - were established by us as needed to make play happen.

But anyway, if what you mean by the setting has an objective existence outside the PCs is that you author bits of it independent of what the players have their PCs do, how does that relate to players' action declarations for their PCs? @chaochou is asserting the following: if you use that GM-authored fiction as a basis for deciding that player action declarations that are unobjectionable from the point of view of genre and established shared fiction, then that is a burden on players' agency. Because there are effects tbat they can't haveon the fiction not for reasons to do with genre, nor to do with what has already happened in play, but because the GM's unilateral conception of the fiction is given priority.

I'm maybe more willing than many other GMs to let the PCs flail a little. (Whether it's the characters or the players in any part of that doesn't matter to me--how much the players are seeing things from the characters' POV is on them.) I don't do "gotcha" things, but I'm also willing to let the players (and/or the characters) make mistakes--sometimes the story goes interesting places, then.

I'm not sure what you mean by "let[ting[ the PCs flail a little" and also by "mak[ing] mistakes".

This seems to imply that there's something the players ought to be having their PCs do, but they don't know what it is ("flail around") and do something they oughtn't ("make mistakes").

When I RPG the story goes interesting places - see eg this actual play report from Sunday's session - but that doesn't involve the PCs or the players making mistakes and flailing arouind. Sometimes they succeed. Sometimes they fail. That's what action resolution mechanics are for.

 

[prabe]

Except this is a false equivalence, and a rhetorical con.

The correct equivalence in the simple mechanic I described is “the DM decides” vs “either the DM decides or the Player decides”.

The mechanic you described is "The dice determine who has narrative authority." There's nothing in the mechanic you described that determines success or failure (except for tendencies in human nature)--the player could, for whatever reason narrate failure; the GM could narrate success. None of that touches player agency--the ability to decide what the character does, which includes but is not limited to declaring actions as handled in the game.

 

[Fenris-77]

The idea of player agency is far more nuanced than simply indexing the presence of mechanics and detailing how they may or may not, or to what extent they constrain agency at the table for any given player or GM. Even if we restrict ourselves to the example of 5E D&D, which is designed to devolve authority pretty heavily on the GM, there is a pretty broad range of player agency available to players at different tables. The discussion over the last couple of pages has been very focused on the mechanical side of things, which is fine, as the mechanics do constrain agency in various ways, but those mechanics, even used straight out of the box, don't tell anything like the whole story.

One example that should be added to the discussion is that of questions and answers. It's pretty common in some games for players to ask the GM is there X.. with the unstated premise that should there be X it will feature in a declared action of some kind. For example, a character is escaping a tryst and needs to leave via the window, and she asks the DM is there a balcony on the other side of the alley? The unstated premise being that if there is a balcony the character is going to jump across the alley onto it to escape. The answer to that question isn't a function of the rules at all, it's a function of play style and genre expectations, table contract, and some other stuff, but it still a key part of the player agency equation. In some games, the DM has detailed maps and the contents of those maps constrain the details of the physical space, and a DM in that game will only say there is a balcony if he has already established that is indeed a balcony there (because the map says so). That indexes rather low player agency as the map detail prevents the players from authoring details of fictional frame. Barring the map example, player agency in the matter of questions and answers is directly indexed by the chances of the DM answering in the affirmative, and the possibilities there are pretty broad.

Some DMs, myself as an example, will usually answer yes, of course there's a balcony, because the existence of a balcony is a wonderful addition to the fiction (IMO/ITO). Even if a map suggests there isn't, a balcony can be added, or a similar detail proffered in it's place. That game has higher player agency. Some DMs will let the dice decide this sort of thing. They make a roll with some quickly determined outcomes attached to probabilities, say roll a d6 and on 4+ there's a balcony. That is a mid-range level of player agency, there is still some authorial potential over the frame state, but not as much as in the first example. Finally, on the other end of the spectrum, we have out example from above, where there is no balcony unless that had already been decided. Keep in mind that this is indeed a spectrum, not a three state thing, and the manifold nuances of each table and DM change the equation slightly, but these examples do serve to roughly describe the extent of the spectrum.

This is only a single example of how player agency is established beyond the rules and mechanics, and in some games the above is actually part of the rules and mechanics, but not in D&D. Any example of the players having any control over the diegetic frame is an example of available player agency. I only point that out so that the discussion doesn't get blinkered into only examining the mechanics of a given game.

 

[prabe]

I don't know what you mean by the dice decide.

In context with "The GM Decides"--and (I thought) specifically talking about action resolution--I thought it was clear, but I'll try to be clearer.

Talking specifically about action resolution:

"The GM Decides" is the GM deciding that there is no doubt about the outcome of an action; either it cannot succeed or it cannot fail.

"The Dice Decide" is the outcome is in doubt and the dice determine the outcome.

I do not believe there has to be any difference in player agency between the two systems. I'll admit the GM has more authority in the first, and more room for asshattery, but I at least am not talking about good GMing/bad GMing.

It's the difference between (i) staking things on a coin toss, and losing and (ii) having no chance of getting what you want.

I think those are quite different things.

It's the difference between trying to do something you cannot do, and trying to do something you can.

I'm not sure what this means. The setting is a work of fiction. It is authored. So are you saying that you author bits independent of what the players have their PCs do? That's not uncommon in RPGing, though not essential - a few weeks ago when I ran a session of Wuthering Heights the setting was independent of the PCs only in the sense that it was mid-to-late-19th century London and so at one point we looked at a map to see how long it would take to get from Soho to the Thames.

But all the details that mattered - the bookshop, the socialist reading group, the prison, the prisoners, the salient NPCs - were established by us as needed to make play happen.

The PCs are in a world. They are not the first characters in that world, nor will they be the last. I try to keep the world consistent and occasionally have things happen that are unrelated to the PCs. I don't go to the lengths that say @Lanefan does, but I try to make the world feel at least a little lived-in.

But anyway, if what you mean by the setting has an objective existence outside the PCs is that you author bits of it independent of what the players have their PCs do, how does that relate to players' action declarations for their PCs? @chaochou is asserting the following: if you use that GM-authored fiction as a basis for deciding that player action declarations that are unobjectionable from the point of view of genre and established shared fiction, then that is a burden on players' agency. Because there are effects tbat they can't haveon the fiction not for reasons to do with genre, nor to do with what has already happened in play, but because the GM's unilateral conception of the fiction is given priority.

The setting is a place for the PC's stories to happen in. I don't see how using an established fictional world impinges on player agency any more than using the real world does. If a game is set in the real world, there are going to be things the PCs won't be able to do, and some of those things will be impossible because of the GM's understanding of the real world, which might be different from how the real world objectively works. I put real effort into not wrong-footing the players by having the world be different from their expectations, both in considering how I write up the world and in how (and when) I present that information to the players. I answer questions about the world whenever asked. What you're describing sounds like at least a mild-ish case of bad-faith GMing--not telling the players about world facts until they interfere with what they want their characters to do; that's very different, I think, from establishing before character creation that the world has no gods (while making it clear that the mechanics for clerics are otherwise unchanged).

I'm not sure what you mean by "let[ting[ the PCs flail a little" and also by "mak[ing] mistakes".

This seems to imply that there's something the players ought to be having their PCs do, but they don't know what it is ("flail around") and do something they oughtn't ("make mistakes").

They're two different things. "Flailing" references uncertainty about the next step. "Making mistakes" means exactly that, though more often on a level closer to tactical than strategic. If the PCs don't know what to do next, I give them space to decide--almost always without further consequence; if the PCs make poor choice in spite of having adequate information, I let that play out--if I think the mistake is going to kill them, I'll probably try to find a way to get them more information to justify reconsidering the decision, but choices have consequences (or they don't really matter).

When I RPG the story goes interesting places - see eg this actual play report from Sunday's session - but that doesn't involve the PCs or the players making mistakes and flailing arouind. Sometimes they succeed. Sometimes they fail. That's what action resolution mechanics are for.

And when I DM, the story goes interesting places. I have nearly 800 pages of game notes from two campaigns I can pull from, if you want. Sometimes what looks like a mistake leads to an interesting story-thread; I'd miss that if they never made mistakes, wouldn't I?

 

[Maxperson]

Contrast with D&D. Roll 1d20. On a 1-20 the GM decides. Thats a zero agency game.

That's not how D&D works, though. This is how D&D works.

1. Player decides to do something with 100% chance of success. DM narrates what player decided. Player agency.
2. Player decides to do something with 0%. DM narrates what DM decided. No player agency.
3. Player decides to do something with a variable success rate. DM narrates what player decides upon a successful roll. Player agency.
4. Player decides to do something with a variable success rate. DM narrates what DM decides upon an unsuccessful roll. No player agency.

In my experience with 5e, players generally have better than a 50% success rate on the majority of their rolls, so the players' decisions will be what the DM narrates most of the time there. My experience is also that there are more auto yeses than nos, so players' decisions will also be what the DM narrates most of the time there as well.

Narration =/= decision. If the player decides to have his PC swim across a raging river and makes a successful roll, I don't get to decide to narrate something other than his successful swim across the river. If he fails the roll, I do get to decide how to narrate that failure. It could be that he weakens and sinks below the water. It could be that something like a creature or a current pulls him under.

 

[Maxperson]

In context with "The GM Decides"--and (I thought) specifically talking about action resolution--I thought it was clear, but I'll try to be clearer.

Talking specifically about action resolution:

"The GM Decides" is the GM deciding that there is no doubt about the outcome of an action; either it cannot succeed or it cannot fail.

"The Dice Decide" is the outcome is in doubt and the dice determine the outcome.

I do not believe there has to be any difference in player agency between the two systems. I'll admit the GM has more authority in the first, and more room for asshattery, but I at least am not talking about good GMing/bad GMing.

The difference in agency would be how much control the player has on the result. In some games, the player narrates the result of the players decision, so he could make the successful swim check with help from his God, by pure strength, by pulling out a can of spinach and eating it halfway across as he gets into trouble, or whatever is within the bounds set up by the game. In D&D the DM narrates the successful player decision, so while the player still has the agency to change the fiction through his declarations and the results of the successful die roll, he doesn't have as much agency due to the DM narration.

 

[prabe]

The difference in agency would be how much control the player has on the result. In some games, the player narrates the result of the players decision, so he could make the successful swim check with help from his God, by pure strength, by pulling out a can of spinach and eating it halfway across as he gets into trouble, or whatever is within the bounds set up by the game. In D&D the DM narrates the successful player decision, so while the player still has the agency to change the fiction through his declarations and the results of the successful die roll, he doesn't have as much agency due to the DM narration.

It's possible that I'm the only one still in this conversation who separates player agency (the ability to choose what a character does) from narrative authority (the ability to tell the story). The ability to choose--whether to try to swim across the river--is player agency; the ability to describe the result--a current or a monster or angels or a canned leafy green vegetable--is narrative authority. I have played at least one game where narrative authority was not dependent on success in task resolution--so you might fail at a task and have authority to narrate that failure.

 

[Fenris-77]

Narrative authority and player agency aren't the same thing, but those ideas are pretty inextricably entwined in most games. Also, the amount of narrative authority does generally index the level of player agency, although it not the only thing that does so. Both the ability to declare actions and the ability to narrate the conditions of those actions are constrained in various ways and to different extents buy the specific mechanics, rules, and table contract of a specific game.

 

[prabe]

Narrative authority and player agency aren't the same thing, but those ideas are pretty inextricably entwined in most games. Also, the amount of narrative authority does generally index the level of player agency, although it not the only thing that does so. Both the ability to declare actions and the ability to narrate the conditions of those actions are constrained in various ways and to different extents buy the specific mechanics, rules, and table contract of a specific game.

Yup, and there are games where it seems to me as though the players are trading some amount of agency and authority over their characters in exchange for some amount of at least narrative authority over the world. As in, the player gets some limited direct say in the world; in exchange, the GM gets some limited direct control over the PC. I've been told that's not correct, but that's the way the rules read to me (which is why I'm being clear this is my subjective reaction to/analysis of those rules).

 

[Myth Master]

This advice Is beyond bad. Its like anti-roleplaying.

It’s what to do if you aspire to be the worst GM ever.

Said NONE of the players I ever gamed with in 40 years. EVER.
And the point of it is ACTUAL role-play, unlike whatever it is you happen to be doing, apparently.