Realistic Consequences vs Gameplay

[hawkeyefan]

These same details are also going to be shared with a player when the DM is going to make the full decision, though. The player can calculate the odds and and make an informed decision on whether the attempt has a good chance to auto succeed or auto fail. If making an informed decision gives agency to the player, then that agency is present when the player makes an informed decision to attempt something that he knows is very likely to be impossible, but is making the desperate attempt anyway and the DM says no.

I think that when you say "are also going to be shared" what you really should be saying is "may also be shared". And although I agree that a player may have a good idea of odds based on the DM sharing details and also based on familiarity with the DM and his/her style.....I said as much in my post.....I don't think it's the same. One is a case of math. The other is determining someone's opinion, someone who may or may not share their reasoning for that opinion.

Many DMs on these boards have said they often don't share DCs with their players. That alone can create a huge gray area. Factor in other uncertain elements, and the gray area simply grows.

If you're walking into a meeting with a despot that you know acts in this manner, "Going into the meeting, they knew the ruler was unstable and severely punished any dissent in his land - having heard from various NPCs and seeing it firsthand.", you have the information to make an informed decision about whether or not you should make an attempt to dissent in his presence, and that the consequences will be severe. And, since you heard stories about what he has done from "various NPCs" who saw it first hand, you have an idea of what those consequences will be.

No, you really don't.

You know he is unstable and does not like dissent. You also know he's used to bossing around meek townsfolk. How will the Baron react when someone clearly more powerful than he....an outsider unconcerned with his influence, and capable of toppling his little regime....shows up and insults him? Certainly these are different circumstances. And that's to say nothing of the fact that moments before, two other party members were negotiating with him amicably.

There are any number of ways for the DM to adjudicate here. You do not have a clear picture at all. Especially since you are only operating on the information that the DM has chosen to share with you, and he may have been able to share more.

From the player perspective, the baron is an obstacle to be overcome, right? Let's compare this with something that D&D is more specific about. Let's say the party is hearing about a dragon in the area....and how "its hide is made of impenetrable plates that protect it from all attacks!" This is likely an indication to the players that the dragon has a high AC. Is it an indication to them that if they attack it, they will be unable to hurt it?

Is the Baron's dislike of disobedience a challenge to the PCs to overcome? Or simply an indication that they must try another means? Which is it? How will players know? Because when townsfolk get out of line, he throws them in the stocks?

Let's look at another scenario.....what if Strahd arrived in the Baron's hall and insulted him? Would the Baron cry "Guards!" with the intent of seizing the Count and placing him in the stocks? Or should the DM take into consideration that Strahd is far different from the humble folk that populate Vallaki?

I wouldn't think all that much. The rules are very clear that the DM calls for a roll when the outcome of an action is uncertain and has a meaningful outcome. The rest of the time the DM will say yes or no. And while the DM is empowered to ignore the rules, it would be in bad faith to do so in a manner that goes against the spirit of the rules. The DM should only go against the rules when there is a good reason to do so. When I do that, I explain my thinking to the players as I do it.

The players can reasonably rely on the DM only deciding when something will clearly succeed or clearly fail, even if the success or failure is due to something the players are unaware of, which occasionally happens.

So the DM in the OP thought it made sense that the Baron would simply call for the guards because one PC insulted him. Is the DM's opinion that the Baron would do so good enough reason to ignore the rules? Is this bad faith play on the DM's part?

And again, you say the "players can reasonably rely..." and I think it's more accurate to say that "the players may be able to rely....". "Can" implies certainty that is absent in this scenario.

Less clear still equals a very good chance to read things correctly, though, so long as the DM is describing things the way he should be. If the DM is giving poor descriptions then there will be issues, but those issues will affect new and old players.

The DM is responsible for what the players know about the world and the NPCs and everything else. Sometimes, players miss details or cues that they may need to be aware of. Sometimes, a DM may not be as clear with those as he thinks he's being. This stuff happens.

"Less clear" by no means "equals a very good chance". It may be any amount within a pretty substantial range of understanding.

No it's not moot, and broad doesn't take away meaning. Think of how often you're near earth in your daily life. I'd wager for probably 99% or more of your life there is earth near you. That broad presence doesn't take away meaning from the word earth or what earth means. It just means that the vast majority of the time, earth is present.

I fail to see the relevance of this point about how close I am to the earth. I was making a point about an overly broad description, not broad presence.

It's the same with player agency. Since my PC is shaping the fiction with the vast majority of both his successful and his failed attempts, agency is present. I can make an informed decision and shape the fiction with my actions whether I succeed or not. And if we add "informed" into the mix of what grants agency, then even an answer of no from the DM will still result in agency, still the player made an informed decision, decided to make the desperate attempt, and through that attempt shaped the fiction into something new.

You can have greater and lesser amounts of agency depending on the system, but a DM acting in good faith results in agency almost without fail, regardless of system. I doubt there's a RPG system out there that is designed so that there is no player agency.

The DL series of modules is often cited as exactly that, isn't it? It's a pure railroad....you climb aboard and then it goes where it goes no matter what you do.

I think that's an extreme example, but it's one that comes up a lot. And for the record, I don't think that D&D is generally played with no agency on the part of its participants. I simply believe that it can be played that way. And that it can be prone to unnecessary limits on player agency.

I disagree. First, the player isn't going to break his foot unless the player is playing in a game with critical fumbles, in which case he is making an informed decision to kick down the door knowing that if he rolls a 1, his foot could break. Second, even a brand new player should be able to realize that kicking a door is going to make a lot of noise and could be heard, success or failure. So he's making an informed decision to make a ton of noise, too, unless makes the informed decision to use a silence spell first and not make noise.

The PC may break his foot. The DM can decide that is the result of failure. Do the rules as written block this? The player doesn't get to dictate what a failure entials, the DM does. No house rules are needed for this to be the case, although I would say that it's out of the ordinary. It's rather more dynamic than what D&D typically allows in these circumstances, but I think it's supported by the rules.

That or bad faith DMing where the DM says no inappropriately. Though I guess that could be viewed as a form of losing control of the character.

I don't think that it takes "bad faith" DMing for the DM to say no inappropriately. The OP wasn't DMing in bad faith, but I think he very well could have gone another route with his decisions. He could have allowed the insult to cow the Baron, he could have simply applied a setback to whatever progress the negotiations had taken, he could have went to the dice to see how it played out.

Sure, but an in fiction method of taking away player agency is perfectly acceptable. It's going to be limited in duration.

Well, yes, limits on player agency are absolutely acceptable, limited or otherwise.

 

[prabe]

There was nothing inadequate about your explanation. In this more recent post you point out that casting a spell is a thing a character does in the fiction; whereas spending a fate/hero point does not. But the event that the expenditure engenders typically will correspond to something in the fiction: eg if I spend a fate/hero point so my PC can pull a handy skeleton key out of his/her toolbox, or can notice a chandelier to swing on, that does correlate to an event in the fiction.

More generally, both casting a spell and spending a fate point let the player change the fiction, often in identical ways. Hence my post that I don't understand all this talk about players editing scenes. We just seem to be talking about players affecting the fiction.

It's clear you do get it when in a post just down thread you describe metagame mechanics thus:

(in the sense of mechanics that allow players to establish elements of the fiction that don't correspond to their PCs creating or bringing about those elements of the fiction).

So I don't understand why in your reply to me you are taking a position that they're the same thing. I would say these metagame mechanics give the player more agency by not requiring the change in the fiction to be something the character can accomplish--as you accurately describe.

I described a procedure in which, first, genre and ficitonal positioning and the like are assessed to see if an action declaration is permissible in the context, and then - if it is - the GM decides whether or not to say yes or call for a dice roll. Distinguishing those two steps is quite important, because the role of players and GM in respect of each of them is quite different.

So, in both procedures, as I understand them:

1) The player proposes an action for their character.
2) The GM decides if there will be a roll, incorporating into that decision things such as genre-fidelity, etablished fiction, positioning. (Note that "Say yes or roll the dice" still contains a decision point.)
3) The player rolls the dice or otherwise resolves the action.
4) The result is narrated, faithful to the result of the resolution. Who narrates may be per the rules, or not.

Any GM decision that didn't take into account context and genre and all-a-that would be bad-faith GMing, and probably bad GMing. A GM operating in bad faith can remove agency in many ways.

If the question of whether or not an action declaration is permissible - in the sense of being eligible to proceed to resolutoin by way of "say 'yes' or roll the dice" - depends on the GM's notes, and the GM's common sense, and the GM's inferences drawn from research, then the players' agency is clearly being subordinated to that of the GM.

That may be good. It may be bad. I don't see how it can be denied.

If we were playing a game set in the real world, and a player wanted their character to drive to Nome, Alaska from roughly anyplace else, I as GM would have to say they couldn't (unless that place was Teller, Alaska) because there literally are no roads that go there. I wouldn't say in that instance that the player's agency was being subordinated to the GM's--maybe you would, in which case we're further apart than I think we are. If we were playing a game set in a fictional published world, and a player wanted something similar--I'm honestly not familiar enough with published game settings to offer a specific example here--I wouldn't say it's the GM's agency that's being prioritized over the player's agency: I'd say it was something like faithfulness to the setting (you might describe it differently). The difference between that second example and a game like mine where I write my own setting is that large parts of the setting are in my head; I like to think I do a good job of conveying that setting to the players, but it's possible I'm wrong about that. If a player wants their character to do something impossible in the setting (say, walk from Mahassar to Kotima without lots of magic) they can't, and that doesn't feel to me as though I'm denying the player's agency there--again, you might disagree.

From this it follows that the AD&D game I played - in which no actions could affect the fiction unless they conformed to the GM's planning and expectations - was one with unconstrained player agency. I mean, when the NPCs knew nothing and could provide no help, that was because the fiction contained only ignorant and useless NPCs!

Obviously that's an absurd conclusion. Which therefore shows that something has gone wrong with the premises. And what has gone wrong is the premise that player agency over the shared ficiton is not affected by the way the GM makes decisions about whether or not action declarations are able to have a chance of success.

As I said before in this post--and at least once upthread--a GM operating in bad faith can deny player agency in many ways. In this case he seems to have been denying your ability to change the fiction, which seems pretty definitionally to be denying y'all agency. What you seem to me to be saying is that a GM operating in good-faith, making decisions about what can't work, what can't not work, and what needs to be determined, is denying the players their agency; if that is what you're saying, I disagree.

 

[prabe]

Two cricket teams are having to decide who fields first. Here's one way: the home side captain decides.

Here's another way: a coin is tossed, and the winner of the toss decides whether that team fields first or bats first.

The second is the way it's actually done. I don't think any cricket players or cricket fans would think that changing to the first way would not make a difference.

Dunno how much difference it makes in cricket, but in baseball the home team bats second. There are slight advantages that come with that, but given that (in a normal season) every Major League team plays 162 games, half at home, they don't add much over the course of the season.

A GM deciding that an action fails automatically is preventing the player from changing the fiction in a way that the player cares about (given s/he declared the action for his/her PC).

A GM declining to "say 'yes'" to a declared action and therefore funnelling it into the action resolution mechanics is allowing the dice to determine whether the fiction changes as the player wants it to, or whether it changes in some other way more adverse to the PC.

The first looks like a unilateral decision about the fiction. The second looks like the playing of a game in which the participants are able, via the mechanical frameworks, to change the fiction in varous ways. The idea that they are not different in respect of the capacity of various participants to influence the fiction is simply not credible.

A GM saying yes is making a similarly unilateral decision. How much that changes the fiction is likely to result in how the success is honored and how it's narrated. This is how a GM operating in bad faith can allow PCs to "succeed" while still not allowing them to change the fiction. I have seen this with my own eyes, as a player.

The focus on the character is just a distracting way of trying to approach the actual question, which is can the player meaningfully affect and change the shared fiction?

And my answer is that the method of resolution doesn't matter. What matters is the good faith and/or flexibility of the GM.

Another part of my answer is that since the character is the means through which the player changes the fiction (most of the time--your example from Burning Wheel is an example of this not being true, as are metagame mechanics) it seems reasonable to focus on the character.

 

[Maxperson]

This is a framework for puzzle-solving.

A puzzle is something to solve. When you are given the answer, there is no puzzle.

Contrast that with @Campbell's OSR-ish emphasis on cleverly leveraging the fiction. Now that's agency - it's doing something that actually impacts the shared fiction. What would the analogue of that be for the despot? The players would eg know that he has a fondness for rabbits - and so now they can try and find some and bring them to him. Where was that in the framing of the OP's situation? If anyone's spelled it out I missed it. If the only information we have on the mad despot is what will shut things down rather than what will open things up then where is the scope for the exercise of agency?

It may have been there or it may not. He didn't get into that level of detail.

 

[FrogReaver]

Wait...am I in the Matrix?

nope. Though going back and forth talking about fictional worlds and characters and the real world and players may have the tendency to make it sound as such.

 

[Maxperson]

I think that when you say "are also going to be shared" what you really should be saying is "may also be shared". And although I agree that a player may have a good idea of odds based on the DM sharing details and also based on familiarity with the DM and his/her style.....I said as much in my post.....I don't think it's the same. One is a case of math. The other is determining someone's opinion, someone who may or may not share their reasoning for that opinion.

If a DM would share the details when in a situation where there is a roll, then he's also going to share the details when there isn't a roll. He's not suddenly going to stop the way he's DMing to hold back details.

And it's all math. The range of possible outcomes is 0% to 100%. All that remains is to calculate the odds. It doesn't cease to be math when the odds of success hit 0% or 100%.

No, you really don't.

You know he is unstable and does not like dissent. You also know he's used to bossing around meek townsfolk. How will the Baron react when someone clearly more powerful than he....an outsider unconcerned with his influence, and capable of toppling his little regime....shows up and insults him? Certainly these are different circumstances. And that's to say nothing of the fact that moments before, two other party members were negotiating with him amicably.

Maybe I missed it, but where was it said that 1) the PCs are more powerful than he and his guards are, and/or 2) that he knows they are more powerful?

From the player perspective, the baron is an obstacle to be overcome, right? Let's compare this with something that D&D is more specific about. Let's say the party is hearing about a dragon in the area....and how "its hide is made of impenetrable plates that protect it from all attacks!" This is likely an indication to the players that the dragon has a high AC. Is it an indication to them that if they attack it, they will be unable to hurt it?

Why would he have to be an obstacle to overcome? Maybe he's just something to navigate through. Overcome implies conflict that may or may not be there.

If I were a player hearing about such a dragon, I'd ask more questions. Such as, "Have other heroes armed with magic made the attempt?" and so on. The description is unusual and warrants more research. In 5e, such high armor classes don't exist and any dragon can be hurt on a roll of 20, so even a bunch of peasants with bows can hurt one, so this is clearly something odd.

Is the Baron's dislike of disobedience a challenge to the PCs to overcome? Or simply an indication that they must try another means? Which is it? How will players know? Because when townsfolk get out of line, he throws them in the stocks?

Let's look at another scenario.....what if Strahd arrived in the Baron's hall and insulted him? Would the Baron cry "Guards!" with the intent of seizing the Count and placing him in the stocks? Or should the DM take into consideration that Strahd is far different from the humble folk that populate Vallaki?

Probably not. The Baron would have heard about what Strahd does to people and would know not to insult him.

The DM is responsible for what the players know about the world and the NPCs and everything else. Sometimes, players miss details or cues that they may need to be aware of. Sometimes, a DM may not be as clear with those as he thinks he's being. This stuff happens.

Sure. Mistakes happen. Regardless of system or agency.

"Less clear" by no means "equals a very good chance". It may be any amount within a pretty substantial range of understanding.

You seem to have ignored everything that came after that. When you factor in the rest of what I said, "...so long as the DM is describing things the way he should be." It will still equal a very good chance. What you are describing is the sentence after that bolded sentence, "If the DM is giving poor descriptions then there will be issues, but those issues will affect new and old players."

I fail to see the relevance of this point about how close I am to the earth. I was making a point about an overly broad description, not broad presence.

It's the same thing with regard to scope. Earth is almost always around you and it has meaning. Player agency is almost always present, and it has meaning. Being broad doesn't take away its meaning.

The PC may break his foot. The DM can decide that is the result of failure. Do the rules as written block this?

Nope. Nor do they allow it. The DM has to change the game for something like this to happen, and the players would or at least should be aware of such changes.

The player doesn't get to dictate what a failure entials, the DM does. No house rules are needed for this to be the case, although I would say that it's out of the ordinary. It's rather more dynamic than what D&D typically allows in these circumstances, but I think it's supported by the rules.

There would have to be a house rule present. A broken foot is beyond the scope of simple narration of a failed attempt to kick down the door.

 

[Campbell]

Programming Note

I do not really like the use of "story game" outside of storytelling games like The Quiet Year, Follow, Fiasco, For The Queen and Icarus where the game is played without a GM and players are supposed to work together to bring the game to a satisfying narrative conclusion. These are story advocacy games (even in the case where you play a single character) so "story game" feels right.

For games like Apocalypse World, Burning Wheel, and Sorcerer if we must consider them a separate category instead of simply being called roleplaying games I would call them character focused or character driven roleplaying games. The primary differences are in reward structure, GM techniques, and the parts of the fiction they feel the need to model - they focus more on social dynamics and relationships than on physical confrontations. They are character advocacy games.

There is not a strong correlation between indie or character focused games and mechanics that are not directly correlated with the fiction. If anything mainstream games are more rather than less apt to implement these sorts of mechanics (usually as a patch over their resolution system). Inspiration and abstract martial abilities in Fifth Edition, Void Points in Legend of the Five Rings, Willpower in Storyteller, Destiny Points and strain FFG Star Wars, Hero Points in Pathfinder Second Edition, etc. There are very few mainstream games that do not utilize some kind of meta-currency or abstract limited use abilities.

 

[Campbell]

I think part of what is going on here is that some of us are associating "go to the dice" with games where the rules of the game tell us what happens. In 5th Edition except during combat and when a spell is involved the dice roll is nonbinding. In Fifth Edition the DM determines whether dice are rolled and what impact that has. This is different from even Pathfinder Second Edition which (taking some cues from Apocalypse World) lays out what success or failure mean and provides guidance on what DCs should look like for a given skill.

If I am trying to have my character intimidate a mad tyrant into doing something he does not want to do the game provides me with guidance on the sort of fictional position my character needs, what DCs likely look like, and what happens if my character critically succeeds, succeeds, fails, or critically fails. This allows me to make decisions for my character with a much better view of what might happen. The rules call out where judgement calls are expected to occur so I know where I should expect to negotiate with the GM.

It is possible to get that kind of information from a GM, but at that point they would just be writing their own game.

I am not saying the approach Pathfinder Second Edition takes is preferable in all cases. I do think the clear expectations it provides to both players and GMs can help (but not necessarily will) provide an experience where players have more agency over the fiction.

I think having a strong idea about the consequences rather than just success or failure is critical. I have zero interest in Spicy Dice rolls. If dice rolls do not really matter I would rather not roll them.

 

[Manbearcat]

Under that definition, it is also not sufficient if there are rules involved. Anything that limits the ability to enact the decision, such as rules saying how to go about enacting the decision, would take away agency, unless you are equally limited in making those decisions in the first place.

I'm going to use this response to one of my prior posts on agency @Fenris-77 in response to your question regarding "what does D&D do well? (and the implied question of "how is that expressed in agency?")"

First I'm going to focus on (a) Moldvay Basic delving (which is one of the playstyles D&D does well), (b) that second sentence (because its apposite), and (c) "why more so often becomes less" when the dungeon walls (and related constraints) are removed.

So we have a Unit of Play that the game orbits around:

The Exploration Turn

10 minutes of navigating 120 ft, listening, searching. The dungeon is stocked with traps, puzzles, denizens, secret doors, treasure, et al.

We also have some Clocks:

The Light Clock (our lanterns and torches work on the Turn schedule...this isn't nearly punishing enough...which is one of the great changes Torchbearer made) and the Wandering Monster Clock; we have a 16.7 % chance to encounter Wandering Monsters on each Exploration Turn. Encumbrance (lets call it a Clock because it increases our struggle as it matures) limits our ability to explore (throttling back that 120) as we become weighed down with treasure. We have the Rest Clock (every 5 turns we're disincentivized to continue without a Rest because of accruing negatives). Finally, we have our Resource Attrition Clock (Hit Points, Spells, Loadout).

These things and the mechanics to handle the minutiae of delving (Traps, Searching/Listening, Combat, Monster Reaction, Morale, et al) and, along with the conversation of description<>clarification, inform player decision-points.

What does this all of this work to do?

Distill the precise type of agency we're trying to test in challenge-based gaming.

Agency distillation is central here.

What happens if we add more stuff or take away constraints/hardships? Lets examine just a couple of changes and their implications on play.

* Lets go from the claustrophobic dungeon/ruin to the outdoors. Yeah, by removing the enclosed corridors, we suddenly have access (and therefore a perceived sense of increased agency) to significantly increased omnidirectional travel choice. However...there goes our Light Clock (even if at night there is still the moon). Further, lack of constraint on direction of travel will very likely make each travel-based decision-point under the Exploration Turn paradigm lower in resolution and less pressing/high-stakes in terms of attrition/danger (intersection with the holistic "Delve Clock" which is all of the Clock factors integrated).

It should be clear that this will almost surely result in Challenge-Ablation-Creep just on its own.

* Remove Encumbrance? Suddenly, our decision-point on item loadout and treasure procurement becomes muted entirely.

Another instance of Challenge-Ablation-Creep.

We can continue, but it should be clear where this is going. Each of these things are important on their own and, when combined with other changes, will serve to amplify each other (possibly to the point of rendering one facet of Challenge-based-play inert...which will have further downstream effects).

---

So what I'm trying to get at with this post is a few things:

1) There is a sensitive Agency:Constraint: Play Priority relationship. More perceived agency and/or less constraint isn't always more (actual coherent agency). Sometimes more is less because the entire point of play can become muted or damaged beyond repair. If the point of agency in a game is to test delving skill in a threatening obstacle course, you encode play with particular constraints to ensure gamestate movement from one state to the next (and onward) is as close to a product of that skill as possible.

2) Removal of those encoded constraints will perturb your distilled "Delving Agency" and therefore invariably perturb your Play Priority. Given how sensitive things can be here, small changes can have big effects. At some point (and likely very soon in the process), your changes will almost surely significantly negatively impact your initial Play Priority without the most rigorous intentful design. Now you've moved off of your primary Play Priority to something else...likely 2 different Play Priorities...with a very keen chance that they can be at odds with each other (possibly significantly so), rendering the resultant play a good chance of being a mess of misaligned Agency and Play Priorities.

THIS is what happens a lot with D&D. And what actually ends up happening is the GM starts relying upon Force to create a perceived experience of aligned Agency and Play Priorities when, under the hood (and definitely in the minds of the players who have sensed the tidal disruption), there is serious misalignment and incoherent incentive structures/feedback loops.

 

[hawkeyefan]

If a DM would share the details when in a situation where there is a roll, then he's also going to share the details when there isn't a roll. He's not suddenly going to stop the way he's DMing to hold back details.

And it's all math. The range of possible outcomes is 0% to 100%. All that remains is to calculate the odds. It doesn't cease to be math when the odds of success hit 0% or 100%.

It ceases to be math when the DM decides "Oh you insult him? He calls for the guards."

What math was the player considering in the OP? What kind of check was used? What was the DC?

As far as we know, and according to many folks in this thread, we don't need to know those answers. Because the DM is well within his ability to determine that there is no possibility of success, and not call for a roll at all, and simply narrate what happens.

Maybe I missed it, but where was it said that 1) the PCs are more powerful than he and his guards are, and/or 2) that he knows they are more powerful?

Curse of Strahd. The PCs are adventurers from beyond Barovia. They are armed and armored, capable of using magic, and so on. It's obvious that they are more powerful than the meek villagers he is accustomed to dealing with. In the OP, he certainly seemed to deem them worth an audience, so that's all we have to go on in for that specific example. It's enough.

Why would he have to be an obstacle to overcome? Maybe he's just something to navigate through. Overcome implies conflict that may or may not be there.

If I were a player hearing about such a dragon, I'd ask more questions. Such as, "Have other heroes armed with magic made the attempt?" and so on. The description is unusual and warrants more research. In 5e, such high armor classes don't exist and any dragon can be hurt on a roll of 20, so even a bunch of peasants with bows can hurt one, so this is clearly something odd.

"Obstacle to overcome" or "navigate through" are just phrases that mean the same thing. And there absolutely is conflict between the PCs and the Baron. How they deal with that conflict is the question. So, with that in mind....compare what we know of the baron's temper with a dragon having a high AC. This was my point.

People describe the dragon as being armored. People describe the baron as being unstable. Armored has a mechanical expression in the game. Unstable has no such mechanical expression. It could. The DM can simply assign a DC with that in mind.....to convince this nutjob, you need to score X on a Persuasion check or Y on an Intimidate check. Doesn't take much. But it's not something that's already there. If it was, this thread wouldn't exist.

Probably not. The Baron would have heard about what Strahd does to people and would know not to insult him.

Right. Why wouldn't he consider the PCs along those lines? Not that he'd be as wary of them as he would Strahd, but more wary than townsfolk for sure.

Sure. Mistakes happen. Regardless of system or agency.

Yes, mistakes can happen with any system. My point is that this system lends itself to this particular mistake. It make it more likely to happen.

You seem to have ignored everything that came after that. When you factor in the rest of what I said, "...so long as the DM is describing things the way he should be." It will still equal a very good chance. What you are describing is the sentence after that bolded sentence, "If the DM is giving poor descriptions then there will be issues, but those issues will affect new and old players."

It's not that I'm ignoring it, it's that I think my point is that this is a weak spot for this system. I don't think that the DM needs to do a poor job for their to be confusion. Even great DMs are going to leave something out, or they're going to be more vague than they think they're being, and so on. In most cases, this won't be poor DMing.

It's the same thing with regard to scope. Earth is almost always around you and it has meaning. Player agency is almost always present, and it has meaning. Being broad doesn't take away its meaning.

Now that you've restated this, I find it no clearer how this means anything to our discussion.

Nope. Nor do they allow it. The DM has to change the game for something like this to happen, and the players would or at least should be aware of such changes.

There would have to be a house rule present. A broken foot is beyond the scope of simple narration of a failed attempt to kick down the door.

I really don't think that's something precluded by the rules. The DM determines the outcome on a failure, whether it's no progress, or partial success, or success with a setback. I don't think that there's a rule that says "The DM can't say the PC breaks his foot."