Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[Ovinomancer]

Are there no RPG's that prevent you from announcing your characters action under certain circumstances? Are there none that ever give the ability to announce an action for your character to another player or NPC?

You seem to have missed the point. The ability to announce an action isn't agency. That's what @pemerton said. So asking if games exist where you are prevented from announcing actions doesn't counter that argument -- whether you are or not, announcing actions isn't agency. Being able to announce actions for other characters (which can happen in D&D, legally, by the rules) doesn't refute that announcing the action still isn't agency.

You seem to have confused "ability" with "agency". I have the ability to announce actions. True. This gives me agency. False. The ability to announce actions is necessary, but not sufficient, for agency to exist. It's like you've found a car engine and say, aha, this is what makes the car go. At first glance, this seems reasonable. But, you also need gasoline. You also need someone to provide control of the engine. You also need a car to put the engine in. The engine is necessary to make a car go, but it is not sufficient by itself. This is the same for declaring actions for a character in play. Necessary, not sufficient.

 

[FrogReaver]

You seem to have missed the point. The ability to announce an action isn't agency. That's what @pemerton said. So asking if games exist where you are prevented from announcing actions doesn't counter that argument -- whether you are or not, announcing actions isn't agency. Being able to announce actions for other characters (which can happen in D&D, legally, by the rules) doesn't refute that announcing the action still isn't agency.

You seem to have confused "ability" with "agency". I have the ability to announce actions. True. This gives me agency. False. The ability to announce actions is necessary, but not sufficient, for agency to exist. It's like you've found a car engine and say, aha, this is what makes the car go. At first glance, this seems reasonable. But, you also need gasoline. You also need someone to provide control of the engine. You also need a car to put the engine in. The engine is necessary to make a car go, but it is not sufficient by itself. This is the same for declaring actions for a character in play. Necessary, not sufficient.

If you cannot announce your characters action then you have no agency over your character. That is a very important point.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Agency of any type is not about a chance to succeed. It's about the capability of being able to succeed. In a DM decides game that capability for success existed even when something was ruled failure so long as his ruling of failure wasn't done for the reason of removing your capability for success.

Agency is about the ability to see your intention exerted on the fiction (speaking of agency in game, here). If my action cannot succeed, I don't have agency merely by announcing it. Dice mechanics allow for me to have the possibility to exert my intent on the fiction. A GM unilaterally deciding no does not.

 

[Ovinomancer]

If you cannot announce your characters action then you have no agency over your character. That is a very important point.

Yes. If you car does not have an engine, it does not go.

Necessary. Necessary means you have to have it.

But not sufficient. Having it alone doesn't get you to the point.

 

[Ovinomancer]

If you cannot announce your characters action then you have no agency over your character. That is a very important point.

Wait, I noticed you said "your character." This I do not agree with. The ability to announce actions for A character is necessary for an RPG. It doesn't always need to be your character. 5e has lots of being able to declare actions for other characters all over the spell list.

 

[FrogReaver]

Yes. If you car does not have an engine, it does not go.

Necessary. Necessary means you have to have it.

But not sufficient. Having it alone doesn't get you to the point.

I set two criteria out for agency over a character.
1. The player must be able to determine the characters actions.
2. The player must be able to have that decision be attempted by the character in the fiction.

I fully agree that 2 is necessary but not sufficient, but I'm sure not for the reasons you were going for. So I'm really not sure why you are going on about that?

 

[FrogReaver]

Wait, I noticed you said "your character." This I do not agree with. The ability to announce actions for A character is necessary for an RPG. It doesn't always need to be your character. 5e has lots of being able to declare actions for other characters all over the spell list.

Stating it doesn't need to be your character isn't really much of a counterpoint is it? Are you wanting me to repeat myself about it needing to be your character and get into an arguing match?

 

[prabe]

I could succeed with the dice, I cannot with a GM that decides. That's a pretty big difference. Some chance to no chance. If you're only evaluating outcomes, you're missing the import of the means.

I will explain why this doesn't compute for me. The dice are inscrutable; I have no way of knowing before I know the roll what the outcome will be. I might know the odds, and I might be able to alter them, but on a fundamental level I have no control over the outcome. The GM may or may not be as inscrutable as the dice; I might know the GM's tendencies, or I might not. I might be able to frame the attempted action in such a way that the GM will allow an auto-success, I might not be. I might have more control over the outcome if the GM is deciding than if I'm rolling a die.

I don't see any difference in agency, there.

Another thought: If a failure on a die roll doesn't remove/negate/falsify agency, neither does a failure because the attempted action is impossible. The method by which failure is derived doesn't change the fact that it's a failure, and failure doesn't seem to me to on its own remove/negate/falsify agency.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I set two criteria out for agency over a character.
1. The player must be able to determine the characters actions.
2. The player must be able to have that decision be attempted by the character in the fiction.

I fully agree that 2 is necessary but not sufficient, but I'm sure not for the reasons you were going for. So I'm really not sure why you are going on about that?

I wasn't, as I flatly rejected that "agency over a character" is separable from agency in general. Did you miss the post where I said that? It's 1207, and it's a reply to you. You should have a notification.

 

[FrogReaver]

Agency is about the ability to see your intention exerted on the fiction (speaking of agency in game, here). If my action cannot succeed, I don't have agency merely by announcing it. Dice mechanics allow for me to have the possibility to exert my intent on the fiction. A GM unilaterally deciding no does not.

If the DM hasn't ruled on the action then it hasn't failed yet.