D&D General Renamed Thread: "The Illusion of Agency"

[Bill Zebub]

Unless you're a spell caster, right?

Which again, circles us back to: if we're looking to achieve the sort of play the OP is looking for, once there's stakes and consequences and the GM identifies them, what stops the player from going "cool, let me make an Athletics check rq to see what happens."

Not sure what point you were making here. Do you mean, what's wrong with the player just saving time by proposing a roll, without waiting for the GM to ask for a roll?

 

[zakael19]

Not sure what point you were making here. Do you mean, what's wrong with the player just saving time by proposing a roll, without waiting for the GM to ask for a roll?

Right, if the framing of the scenario/resolution I proposed works for you in abstract, why not let the player make the call once they’ve established the fictional situation and you’ve set stakes and consequences? I really only see 2 solutions to your OP goal: you push for OSR style play, creating a table of extensive conversational exploration and largely ignore the 5e mechanics unless there’s serious uncertainty (or you’re a spell caster; OSR spellcasters are far more limited then those in 5e). This can absolutely work - an entire play culture proves it does. 5e’s rules probably aren’t the ideal way to do this, and you’ll be fighting culture for a while until you get it all set up, but have at it!

Or you precondition skill declarations on fictional position like DW - but empower the player to either suggest or state their skill usage once they’ve gotten to the point in the conversation it makes sense. DW says you don’t roll dice if there’s nothing at stake, because you’re resolving conflicts not tasks. 4e’s skill challenge system was also about conflict resolution not tasks res. You don’t have the system support if either DW or 4e here, but you can still adjudicate consequences that make sense in the fiction and fail forward, like the proposed bit with the owlbears.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Right, if the framing of the scenario/resolution I proposed works for you in abstract, why not let the player make the call once they’ve established the fictional situation and you’ve set stakes and consequences? I really only see 2 solutions to your OP goal: you push for OSR style play, creating a table of extensive conversational exploration and largely ignore the 5e mechanics unless there’s serious uncertainty (or you’re a spell caster; OSR spellcasters are far more limited then those in 5e). This can absolutely work - an entire play culture proves it does. 5e’s rules probably aren’t the ideal way to do this, and you’ll be fighting culture for a while until you get it all set up, but have at it!

Or you precondition skill declarations on fictional position like DW - but empower the player to either suggest or state their skill usage once they’ve gotten to the point in the conversation it makes sense. DW says you don’t roll dice if there’s nothing at stake, because you’re resolving conflicts not tasks. 4e’s skill challenge system was also about conflict resolution not tasks res. You don’t have the system support if either DW or 4e here, but you can still adjudicate consequences that make sense in the fiction and fail forward, like the proposed bit with the owlbears.

I mean, if I've laid out the stakes, and explained the DC of the roll, and what attriburtes/modifiers/etc. should be applied to that roll, and before I can say, "So please make a such-and-such roll..." they want to cut me off and propose the same thing themselves, my only reservation would be that it's a slippery slope and eventually they start grabbing for the dice earlier and earlier.

But I already spend so much time re-educating players with a "skills = button to press" mentality, I guess a little more wouldn't kill me.

 

[Bill Zebub]

but empower the player to either suggest or state their skill usage once they’ve gotten to the point in the conversation it makes sense.

Oh, and yes to this. The part I haven't mentioned in any of this is I'm totally fine with the player suggesting modifications. "Can I use Str instead of Cha for that Intimidation check?"

I might ask for more explanation, but yes!

I love that kind of engagement.

 

[zakael19]

I mean, if I've laid out the stakes, and explained the DC of the roll, and what attriburtes/modifiers/etc. should be applied to that roll, and before I can say, "So please make a such-and-such roll..." they want to cut me off and propose the same thing themselves, my only reservation would be that it's a slippery slope and eventually they start grabbing for the dice earlier and earlier.

But I already spend so much time re-educating players with a "skills = button to press" mentality, I guess a little more wouldn't kill me.

Sure, I've just found that at least playing something like DW, when your players get in the mentality that they're in charge of setting the situation up so that there's stakes and a place in teh fiction where their actions are clearly a move, they tend to push towards that sort of conversation. Absolutely keeping to the conventional 5e mode and just really driving at "I will not call for a skill check until you make it very clear what we're adjudicating" will get you there, but hey - the OP was all about player agency.

Or again, the OSR thing where you basically just force them to interact with the world via conversation!

 

[Bill Zebub]

Sure, I've just found that at least playing something like DW, when your players get in the mentality that they're in charge of setting the situation up so that there's stakes and a place in teh fiction where their actions are clearly a move, they tend to push towards that sort of conversation. Absolutely keeping to the conventional 5e mode and just really driving at "I will not call for a skill check until you make it very clear what we're adjudicating" will get you there, but hey - the OP was all about player agency.

Oh, now I see where you going with this. Sorry, I misunderstood the exercise.

Yes, absolutely agree, and with players who really grok this way of playing this is of course part of the normal play loop.

Because of the tenor of this whole thread I was in the mindset of re-training players with other habits.

 

[Lanefan]

Before I read your response I was thinking the same thing. The hypothetical scenario was written as if the barbarian is going to fail. But there's the scenario where the wizard blows the level 2 spell slot, then the barbarian lifts the gate, everybody steps through, and the wizard is standing there feeling like he hasn't roleplayed his 17 Int very well.

Oh, the wizard roleplayed his 17 Intelligence just fine here...along with his 8 Wisdom.

That said, the more I see/hear/read about Misty Step the more I think I'd want to make it somewhat higher level or maybe houserule it out of the game in favour of Dimension Door that already exists as a higher-level option.

 

[Umbran]

Unless you're a spell caster, right?

Not fundamentally. Using magic is not referencing a mechanic, but a narrative element we agree the PC has access to. For these purposes there is no fundamental difference between, "I am a fighter, and try to use my sword to kill the orc," and "I am a wizard, and I try to use a spell to fry the orc."

For those simple examples, we probably have matching expectations of what mechanics are likely apply in each case, but do not confuse that expectation with the player actually getting to stipulate what mechanic they will invoke. Indeed, the most basic question is whether mechanics are invoked at all - if the GM does not feel the results are uncertain, or they don't feel there's a consequence for failure, they may forego mechanics entirely and just go to narrating the result.

 

[Lanefan]

It is not a competition, but unless specifically informed beforehand, I think it is fair that players can assume that all class choices will be roughly equally effective in the long run.

Equally-ish effective in the long run, sure; but the long run has nothing to say about any specific here-and-now moment in which one character might be highly effective while another is close to useless.

As for the competition piece, I see it as even though the PCs are all workign together as a team there's nothing wrong with trying to be the most effective member of that team - just like there's nothing wrong with trying to be the best player on your hockey team.

 

[Lanefan]

I agree - the portcullis needs to have a point to existing otherwise passing it by is wasting time, potentially wasting player resources unnecessarily, and they should just move past it without issue. It should be protecting something that the players can’t easily access otherwise. If they can’t access it at all without passing the portcullis, it shouldn’t be material to the adventure itself but maybe it’s a magic item they don’t get or a side NPC they don’t meet.

The second bolded piece is the first bolded piece. The whole point of obstacles is to whittle down PC resources and-or to force resource-use decisions.

That, and IMO there's nothing at all wrong design-wise with the portcullis (and whatever's behind it) being a complete red herring.