D&D General What is player agency to you?

[bloodtide]

See, there are actually games that work on zero or little prep. Nothing else about what you're describing here really applies to me or the other GMs I know. I mean, we're there to hang out as well, but the main focus is the game.

Again, I am just describing one type of many games. Just because a game has one or two things mentioned, does not mean it's that type of game: it has to have all or most of the things mentioned.

All D&D games use dice, so if someone was to say "any game that uses dice must be a type X game" that is just silly. You have to have more to a description.

I realize that as you say you have never played a Casual Game, and have never heard or seen of anyone every playing such a game. I will tell you they are quite common, maybe the most common type of game. A couple of people want to play "a game", so they pick a random game (though far too likely to randomly pick D&D 5E only). Then they get together for a night of relaxing, goofing off, snacks, drinks, and rolling dice to somewhat play "the game".

Even in a typically prep-heavy game like D&D, I don't personally tend to prep as much as other folks. This isn't because my game is casual or anything.... it's intentional because I like the players to influence the game as much as possible. The more I prepare, the less likely they are to do so, generally speaking.

Every GM has a different level of prep, from 'a lot' to 'none'.

Imagine if you didn't need to decide everything ahead of play. There are blank spots that need to be defined during play, and there are processes for determining that.

Yea, not a fan of pre written vague 'processes' vs my imagination.

I mean, a Random Encounter table is a pretty classic example. It removes the need for the DM to decide the location of every denizen of a dungeon at all times, and places pressure on the players to take action instead of lingering in areas.

Except the GM makes the Random Encounter Table. But it's still not close to the 'processes' your talking about. The player does not say "I keep an eye out for a goblin with lots of gold", make a roll rule check, and then the GM says "there is a goblin with lots of gold right next to your character!"

Right. So there you go... you place little or no priority on collaboration or player agency.

Well, just the general definitions and ideas used by posters in this thread.

My idea of "collaboration" is not just the player "saying they want something in the game", and then the GM saying "yes, as you wish".

That's pretty much all that folks are talking about. Games that are set up for more collaboration. That tends to allow for more player agency. If you can understand that folks like collaboration more than you, that's all you really need to know.

I got it. The Cinematic Cricle explanation from a couple pages back fits everything perfectly for me and make sense.

Yes, and then you criticize the post for the things you added. So, it's not really a criticism of the post... it's a criticism of your own take on the post, which is clearly flawed.

But then it's just an endless circle.

It depends on the game. I don't know what rule you have in mind or what game, or why you think it's a "tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny window to attempt to do something". Nor does everyone play the game in a way that it's always subject to the GM's whim.

Well, any time I mention a player might do anything to really effect the game in a small, medium or big way......I get told it's "impossible". So that only leaves tiny ways to effect the game.

But maybe we can get somewhere with this. Can you offer an example from play where a player in one of your games exercised agency in a meaningful way?

Well, note it won't be any of the definitions from this thread.

The group of players wanted to reclaim an old dwarf hold(they got the idea from Streams of Silver, of course). So they all made 'nobody' dwarf characters and made a lite clan and history. Then gave it to me to make all the real details. For the next [real] year or so they went on 'generic' adventures to gain fame and fortune. But they were always careful to not ruffle feathers, make enemies, and make allies. They also saved and requited every 'exile' or 'clanless' dwarf they could. Then, for the next [real] year of game play they used all their real game experience to 'make their own adventures' and set everything up for the great reclaiming march. Then finally came the year long quest to reclaim the dwarven hold. And they did...and lived happily every after.

I don't count "a character can use their architect skill to "find"(aka create) a secret door anywhere on a whim to be "player agency". Having the game play with a long term focus on what the players want, but NOT having the whole world revelove around them (like nearly any movies does). At no time can a player "just wander into the dwarf lands" and say "I keep an eye out for a high level dwarf army", then just make a roll check that succeds, and have the GM say "well, there is a dwarf army right next to you." Every single thing in the game world is there under my iron gaze. If the players find the 'lost' dwarven army emplacement that I alone created and put there, then the players are free to "try" to do whatever their characters could "try" to do (and they choose a duel of honor to defeat the army's general).

 

[hawkeyefan]

Again, I am just describing one type of many games. Just because a game has one or two things mentioned, does not mean it's that type of game: it has to have all or most of the things mentioned.

All D&D games use dice, so if someone was to say "any game that uses dice must be a type X game" that is just silly. You have to have more to a description.

Perhaps what you say here implies you may be missing things about the games others have mentioned?

I realize that as you say you have never played a Casual Game, and have never heard or seen of anyone every playing such a game. I will tell you they are quite common, maybe the most common type of game. A couple of people want to play "a game", so they pick a random game (though far too likely to randomly pick D&D 5E only). Then they get together for a night of relaxing, goofing off, snacks, drinks, and rolling dice to somewhat play "the game".

Well, based on other “statistics” you’ve shared, you’ll excuse me if I don’t lend your anecdotes too much weight.

Having said that, I’m sure I’ve played in casual games based on how you’ve described them above. However, I don’t see any relation at all to the casualness of a game and the amount of prep the GM puts in.

In fact, the more prep a GM puts into the game, the more casual it’s likely to be for me as a player. How could it not be so?

Every GM has a different level of prep, from 'a lot' to 'none'.

Right. I don’t think this reflects upon how casual their game may be, though.

Yea, not a fan of pre written vague 'processes' vs my imagination.

“Vague”? The processes aren’t vague. I offered you an example, and plenty of others have been offered. You haven’t seemed to grasp them, so I’m not gonna try and explain them in detail.

Rest assured though, there are many games with such processes and rules that are more tightly designed than D&D.

As for your imagination, maybe not all your players are interested in that being the totality of play?

Except the GM makes the Random Encounter Table. But it's still not close to the 'processes' your talking about. The player does not say "I keep an eye out for a goblin with lots of gold", make a roll rule check, and then the GM says "there is a goblin with lots of gold right next to your character!"

The GM may or may not make the random encounter table. Many games offer predetermined tables by adventure or terrain type or season or so forth.

And also, no game works as you keep describing with these absurd examples. No one wishes for a goblin with lots of gold. Context matters. The rules matter.

Well, just the general definitions and ideas used by posters in this thread.

My idea of "collaboration" is not just the player "saying they want something in the game", and then the GM saying "yes, as you wish".

But the example you go on to provide is exactly that. The players wanted to reclaim a dwarven hold. And then you provided that opportunity.

This feels inconsistent.

I got it. The Cinematic Cricle explanation from a couple pages back fits everything perfectly for me and make sense.
But then it's just an endless circle.

Only because you’re either missing or ignoring the point.

Well, any time I mention a player might do anything to really effect the game in a small, medium or big way......I get told it's "impossible". So that only leaves tiny ways to effect the game.

Because the examples you provide are absurd. You ignore the examples offered by other folks, sub in your own absurd examples that display a clear lack of understanding, and then criticize your own absurd examples.

Well, note it won't be any of the definitions from this thread.

The group of players wanted to reclaim an old dwarf hold(they got the idea from Streams of Silver, of course). So they all made 'nobody' dwarf characters and made a lite clan and history. Then gave it to me to make all the real details. For the next [real] year or so they went on 'generic' adventures to gain fame and fortune. But they were always careful to not ruffle feathers, make enemies, and make allies. They also saved and requited every 'exile' or 'clanless' dwarf they could. Then, for the next [real] year of game play they used all their real game experience to 'make their own adventures' and set everything up for the great reclaiming march. Then finally came the year long quest to reclaim the dwarven hold. And they did...and lived happily every after.

So they came up with an idea for a quest and then you made that quest central to play? That sounds like the players having a say, no? Do you think they gamed you? Or that you just handed them what they wanted? Or that you’re a casual buddy good time GM with a backwards hat or whatever?

It’s hard to examine your example because I feel like the little bit where you said “Then gave it to me to make all the real details” is likely covering quite a bit of territory.

I don't count "a character can use their architect skill to "find"(aka create) a secret door anywhere on a whim to be "player agency". Having the game play with a long term focus on what the players want, but NOT having the whole world revelove around them (like nearly any movies does). At no time can a player "just wander into the dwarf lands" and say "I keep an eye out for a high level dwarf army", then just make a roll check that succeds, and have the GM say "well, there is a dwarf army right next to you." Every single thing in the game world is there under my iron gaze. If the players find the 'lost' dwarven army emplacement that I alone created and put there, then the players are free to "try" to do whatever their characters could "try" to do (and they choose a duel of honor to defeat the army's general).

Right… you value your prep over player contribution. Perfectly fine preference. There are other ways to do it, though, which involve the players in a more active way. Doesn’t make them casual or whatever other label you want to apply. Just different, and more concerned with collaboration.

 

[bloodtide]

Perhaps what you say here implies you may be missing things about the games others have mentioned?

I have always tried to keep my comments game free. If I know little or nothing about a game...I can't say 'what' it is.

Well, based on other “statistics” you’ve shared, you’ll excuse me if I don’t lend your anecdotes too much weight.

I understand

Having said that, I’m sure I’ve played in casual games based on how you’ve described them above. However, I don’t see any relation at all to the casualness of a game and the amount of prep the GM puts in.

In fact, the more prep a GM puts into the game, the more casual it’s likely to be for me as a player. How could it not be so?

I'd guess your not using the standard definition of Casual then of "being relaxed and unconcerned".

But your the type of player that "gets casual" if a GM puts a lot of prep into a game? Well, that is an example of a bad, hostile player that I have mentioned many times.....but many people say "does not exist".

Right. I don’t think this reflects upon how casual their game may be, though.

Well, I said a Casual Game has a GM that does little or no prep. Also for more examples Cartoon Game, Random Game, Goofy Silly Game or a Simple Game.

“Vague”? The processes aren’t vague. I offered you an example, and plenty of others have been offered. You haven’t seemed to grasp them, so I’m not gonna try and explain them in detail.

Rest assured though, there are many games with such processes and rules that are more tightly designed than D&D.

Well, all the examples I have been given have vague rules..assuming they are game rules...where someone has said something like a "player can only do something reasonable". So....this is Vague. Unless the game offers you pages and pages to define what 'reasonable is'......and I doubt it does.

As for your imagination, maybe not all your players are interested in that being the totality of play?

Agreed. And they are welcome to go play in another game or even start their own.

And also, no game works as you keep describing with these absurd examples. No one wishes for a goblin with lots of gold. Context matters. The rules matter.

Right but they can just have NPCs appear or have Secret Doors appear. But, guess there are rules saying the players can't make gold appear?

But the example you go on to provide is exactly that. The players wanted to reclaim a dwarven hold. And then you provided that opportunity.

This feels inconsistent.

Only because your only using your definitions.

Only because you’re either missing or ignoring the point.

It fits with everything you say....so that works for me.

Because the examples you provide are absurd. You ignore the examples offered by other folks, sub in your own absurd examples that display a clear lack of understanding, and then criticize your own absurd examples.

I have re used the "bump into a NPC" and "find a secret door out of thin air" examples too. That last one is said to be right from a rulebook.

So they came up with an idea for a quest and then you made that quest central to play? That sounds like the players having a say, no? Do you think they gamed you? Or that you just handed them what they wanted? Or that you’re a casual buddy good time GM with a backwards hat or whatever?

It's players having as say as you did ask for my version of player agency.

It’s hard to examine your example because I feel like the little bit where you said “Then gave it to me to make all the real details” is likely covering quite a bit of territory.

What more to add? The players make less then 1% of anything ever, and I make 99%. Seems clear enough. Like I said, I often keep the names the players make...and a vague outline of whatever they added, but then add in 99% of the rest with no say or influence or input by the players.

Right… you value your prep over player contribution. Perfectly fine preference. There are other ways to do it, though, which involve the players in a more active way. Doesn’t make them casual or whatever other label you want to apply. Just different, and more concerned with collaboration.

I'm not sure how you got stuck on "prep and player contribution. "

 

[hawkeyefan]

I have always tried to keep my comments game free. If I know little or nothing about a game...I can't say 'what' it is.

But you keep asserting that you know how these other games work? Have you played anything other than D&D?

I'd guess your not using the standard definition of Casual then of "being relaxed and unconcerned".

Nothing in there about prep.

But your the type of player that "gets casual" if a GM puts a lot of prep into a game? Well, that is an example of a bad, hostile player that I have mentioned many times.....but many people say "does not exist".

No, I don’t “get casual”, my connection to the game is limited because the DM is deciding 99% of what goes on.

1% Contribution seems pretty freaking casual, if you ask me.

I want to he invested and involved in the game. If all the game consists of is the GM trying to show off their cool ideas, I’m not going to be that into the game.

There’s nothing bad or hostile about that. It simply is.

Well, I said a Casual Game has a GM that does little or no prep.

Right, and this is what I disagree with. There’s nothing casual about many of the games I’ve run or played. Not all have involved heavy prep. Some have. I would say my two most intense games involved very little prep on my part as GM.

Well, all the examples I have been given have vague rules..assuming they are game rules...where someone has said something like a "player can only do something reasonable". So....this is Vague. Unless the game offers you pages and pages to define what 'reasonable is'......and I doubt it does.

Actually, you’ve been given some specific examples.

Right but they can just have NPCs appear or have Secret Doors appear. But, guess there are rules saying the players can't make gold appear?

They don’t “just appear” any more than they do if you decide they’re there on the map two weeks before play. They don’t exist. They’re pretend. How we determine what is present in the pretend world of the game is determined by play processes and rules.

In your game, the DM gets to decide where things are and a whole lot more. In other games, there are other methods to determine where things are other than “the GM says”.

Only because your only using your definitions.

No, I’m going off what you’ve said. When other posters have shared instances of the players being involved in determining an element of the game world, you’ve described it as the “DM being soft” and “just giving the players what they ask for” and so on.

Yet you then describe an instance of play where the players told you what they want, and you gave it to them.

This has nothing to do with “my definitions” and is simply about things you’ve said.

I have re used the "bump into a NPC" and "find a secret door out of thin air" examples too. That last one is said to be right from a rulebook.

But you’re also showing a lack of understanding how those rules work in the context of their respective games. You’re taking a description of them and trying to picture how they’d work in your game, and that’s not going to work. They’re for different games.

It's players having as say as you did ask for my version of player agency.

Right, but how is your example somehow sensible, but you caricaturize others as being “silly” or “easy”?

I mean, you gave the players what they wanted.

What more to add? The players make less then 1% of anything ever, and I make 99%. Seems clear enough. Like I said, I often keep the names the players make...and a vague outline of whatever they added, but then add in 99% of the rest with no say or influence or input by the players.

I’d saythis about says it. Nothing more to add.

I'm not sure how you got stuck on "prep and player contribution. "

Stuck on it? I wouldn't say I’m stuck on it so much as the tension between those two things has a lot to do with player agency.

 

[Maxperson]

I don't even see a problem here, the player is simply looking at the options, wouldn't a prudent character do that? I mean, maybe in character the situation is instantly clear and various options are weighed in an instant, but it's a lot less easy to know at the table! Or maybe the character is wandering around town checking out the possible ways to proceed. Remember, the GM can introduce new fiction, there's no guarantee that you get infinite chances to fiddle around.

If you know the DM well enough to game him, you don't need infinite chances.

 

[Maxperson]

I think the subtext of this is that the player could be pursuing a hidden agenda. Frankly I don't think that's a real concern for 2 reasons. It's likely not to work, and it's degenerate bad faith play. It's no harder to do the same thing in trad play, so how is it a criticism of BW?

No. No hidden agenda. The agenda is out in the open, but is simply phrased to get the most advantage since you know what the DM likes and have a good idea of how he will respond.

 

[clearstream]

With the caveat that I haven't read every post on score or so pages since I too a break - but only glanced over them - in what I'm sure will come as a surprise to no one, I have some further thoughts. I feel that I have observed differing intuitions about “player agency” in this thread, that I believe come out of a semantic distinction that I will attempt to explain here.

First to sketch out agency

“…a being has the capacity to exercise agency just in case it has the capacity to act intentionally, and the exercise of agency consists in the performance of intentional actions and, in many cases, in the performance of unintentional actions (that derive from the performance of intentional actions”​

​

“…to act for a reason is to act in a way that can be rationalized by the premises of a sound practical syllogism, which consists, typically, of a major premise that corresponds to the agent’s goal and a minor premise that corresponds to the agent’s take on how to attain the goal”​

There are two parts to agency, related to the major premise and the minor premise. Put succinctly, I feel intuitions may well be divided along the lines of the part they focus upon.

When focused on the major premise, I can say that one kind of player agency is influence over an outcome. I have bolded the word “outcome” to emphasise that agency to achieve a given outcome cannot be increased or decreased through change to agency to achieve a different outcome. The outcomes I’ve had in mind are natural ones, such as – to play Roulette, to spectate a CS: GO match, to cross a playground. In earlier posts, folk have sometimes substituted in alternative outcomes and argued from there that agency can be increased to achieve those (alternative) outcomes. That may be true, but it fails to respect the major premise. To revive another poster’s example, their agency to spectate can’t be increased by forcing them to take the field in play. If the game is American Football, I personally have much greater agency to spectate than I do to take the field at a professional level, i.e. in games that I might well otherwise spectate.

So player agency on the major premise is agency to achieve my goal such as to experience play of RuneQuest. Given that I have limited resources when I play (only so much cognitive capacity and time) experiencing non-goals feasibly comes at a cost to my goals. Interfering with or lessening my agency to achieve them. Mixed experiences are often distinct from unmixed; coffee with milk isn’t neatly coffee plus a retrievable extra component – I can't get the milk back out! – and to my palette the experience is distinctly different from my preferred americano sans latte. Mixed play experiences are not reliably identical to unmixed.

Player agency on the minor premise might well be described using the same words – influence over an outcome – but turns out to be player agency given the higher-order goal is satisfied. Focus for this second kind of agency is put more upon that bolded word – “influence”. It’s the moment-to-moment expression of agency within the chosen activity and is seen wherever player is turned to for the direction or outcome of play. It runs through play in the form of process techniques exercised at the given moment.

Given the same finite resources and mixing observations I made above, minor premise agency is reduced wherever dice, rules, or other participants are turned to rather than the player... except to the extent that doing so optimises player agency overall. When I am about to roll for Addy's Tune In in MotW to learn something about our sylvan horror, I could well obtain greater agency if I took up loaded dice that would amount to simply choosing my outcome. Player agency at the point of influencing is found in techniques that RPGs make greater or lesser use of, and indeed can be measured across games in the natural sense some posters have emphasised; even where the putative “increasing” runs contrary to an agent's major premise and thus cannot reasonably be included in their take on how to attain their goal.

I’ve mentioned optimising "player agency overall". What must also be considered is that play (outside of solo play) is a matter of shared agency. Giving total agency to one player feasibly comes at a cost to other players. Rules and referees can provide regulation that produces optimum player agency overall, in view of each player’s major and minor agentic premises; but that does not guarantee that they will. There are other considerations, too, such as making us say things we don't want to say, and building tension. Contemporary takes on all modes of play that bring GM into the rules framework can I believe be more successful at achieving optimum player minor premise agency overall. Just as structuring rules using contemporary design patterns can do. That's true of every mode of play (an argument I've made for example, about simulationism in another thread.) It mightn't of course satisfy someones goal of achieving a 100% authentic retro-gaming experience, but it could well be described as turning to player more often or impactfully for the moment-to-moment direction or outcomes of play.

 

[clearstream]

In your game, the DM gets to decide where things are and a whole lot more. In other games, there are other methods to determine where things are other than “the GM says”.

I currently feel it is strictly irrelevant to measuring player agency - if that is what one is about - whether it's GM, rules, or dice that are having their say instead of player. Or even other players, for that matter (Jo's agency is moot when Flo monopolises the entire conversation.)

But this is not to say that there are no significantly valuable textural differences in how moment-to-moment agency can be exercised. Some have put emphasis on knowledge, and indeed it seems reasonable to say that intentions are better formed in light of knowledge, but nothing about lack of knowledge prevents players forming intentions and exercising agency in a strict sense. Their take on how to achieve their goals just might not be very effective.

Quantity of agency, and effectiveness thereof, are closely related but separate. Until one focuses on both parts of agency - influence and outcome - but then by my lights one must give up measuring across games. It's evidently invidious, but also meaningless, as one is urging an agent to adopt actions that are rightly excluded from their take on how to achieve their goal. Particularly when their goal is to have a specific experience of a process as much as an experience of outcomes of that process.

 

[bloodtide]

But you keep asserting that you know how these other games work? Have you played anything other than D&D?

If you do check my post you might notice I don't mention games by name. I speak in general.

Nothing in there about prep.

I'm not sure why you brought it up anyway.

No, I don’t “get casual”, my connection to the game is limited because the DM is deciding 99% of what goes on.

I do agree a players decision power is less then one 1%, and the DM gets to decide 99%. The only other ways to do it is have an all DM game or no DM game.

1% Contribution seems pretty freaking casual, if you ask me.

Again, your not getting the definition of casual.

I want to he invested and involved in the game. If all the game consists of is the GM trying to show off their cool ideas, I’m not going to be that into the game.

And this is why people made the 'other' games: for people just like you.

There’s nothing bad or hostile about that. It simply is.

Well, it's one this to "be how it is" as you say and simply not play in the game. It's a whole other thing if you choose to join the game "being how you are".

Right, and this is what I disagree with. There’s nothing casual about many of the games I’ve run or played. Not all have involved heavy prep. Some have. I would say my two most intense games involved very little prep on my part as GM.

And again, I'm not talking specifically about you or your games. There are some no prep or light prep game styles.

Actually, you’ve been given some specific examples.

And I have commented on the specifice examples...and then been told "oh there is more to it" or there is "other stuff we did not mention" or most of all "I read it wrong".
It's clear to me: player wants something and says so. Player makes a rule check. DM does what player says. It's that simple. Yet you say it's not.

And sure the character must be at a specific place and a right time and have the right skill and be reasonable...but once all that is met, the player can just say they want something. Then the player makes a game rule roll. Then the GM does whatever the player wants.

They don’t “just appear” any more than they do if you decide they’re there on the map two weeks before play. They don’t exist. They’re pretend. How we determine what is present in the pretend world of the game is determined by play processes and rules.

Except the problem is the GM, if they are not a fan/buddy of the players, is neutral. I make secret back doors in some places based on the game simulated reality of where I think they should be.

And a play can do that....but much more often will make self serving easy button things to their own advantage.

Again....this is the Rulebook example: Character finds front door guarded. Character walks to the back and uses a skill to look for a secret door. Player makes rule check. DM says 'yup, you find the secret door(that the GM just created for the character).

In your game, the DM gets to decide where things are and a whole lot more. In other games, there are other methods to determine where things are other than “the GM says”.

It's just the Player Lead way is not a good way. Any time, under all the restrictions of when, where and how, they player can "just say" things are in the game. This is Easy Button play at best, or just Full Exploit Code at worst.

No, I’m going off what you’ve said. When other posters have shared instances of the players being involved in determining an element of the game world, you’ve described it as the “DM being soft” and “just giving the players what they ask for” and so on.

Well, that is the exact example. Character looks for secret door, Player makes roll, GM says "the secret door is right in front of you". so how is that not giving the player exactly what they wanted?

Yet you then describe an instance of play where the players told you what they want, and you gave it to them.

I guess the part your missing here is how indirect it was. The players say they want a type of game, but that is it. They don't get control over anything once they utter those words.

But you’re also showing a lack of understanding how those rules work in the context of their respective games. You’re taking a description of them and trying to picture how they’d work in your game, and that’s not going to work. They’re for different games.

I noted it felt that the examples did not work out of context....but it does not seem like anyone can offer them in context.

Right, but how is your example somehow sensible, but you caricaturize others as being “silly” or “easy”?

They are very different. A player asks for a type of game and has less then zero input on anything after saying that vs a player with a character at set times and places can alter the game reality using a special rule.

I mean, you gave the players what they wanted.

Part of being a good GM. Note not once ever did they say "I want x", make a roll, and then I did that for them....

Stuck on it? I wouldn't say I’m stuck on it so much as the tension between those two things has a lot to do with player agency.

I guess your going back to the anti-prep/anti-detail idea? Let me know? The complaint I'm talking about is where players don't like that they can't create and alter the games fiction Outside The Game, because the GM has everything written down in Stone.

The GM makes the Tower Terrible with lots of notes. It has no back secret door. The character wanders over and the players says "I want a back door". GM says nope, I Have Spoken and points to the game notes.

So the idea is if "the tower place" is just a "vague thing" with little or no notes....a player can say "I want a back door" and the GM will just blink and say "oh, ok, why not...poof...there is a back door" becasue they have no 'notes in stone'.

Is this what your talking about?

 

[hawkeyefan]

If you do check my post you might notice I don't mention games by name. I speak in general.

Right, but you probably should. Whatever game you're talking about... I assume D&D... you apply what you're saying to all RPGs. Which is just inaccurate.

I'm not sure why you brought it up anyway.

You did. See below:

Well, I said a Casual Game has a GM that does little or no prep.

This is just untrue of many games, even some within the overall umbrella of D&D.

I do agree a players decision power is less then one 1%, and the DM gets to decide 99%. The only other ways to do it is have an all DM game or no DM game.

No, that's not the only other way to do it. That's the whole point.

Again, your not getting the definition of casual.

I know what casual means in general usage. You seem to have a particular take on what a casual game means which I don't think is entirely accurate or clear.

And this is why people made the 'other' games: for people just like you.

I don't know why other is in quotes. But even D&D can be played differently than you describe.

Well, it's one this to "be how it is" as you say and simply not play in the game. It's a whole other thing if you choose to join the game "being how you are".

Sure, any kind of clash in this way is due to misaligned expectations between participants.

So you've said in the past that you have some players who seem to want something different from the game. That's because you have different ideas about the game than they do. Obviously, when this happens, the different expectations should be discussed and worked out in some way, or else the participants should go their separate ways.

And again, I'm not talking specifically about you or your games. There are some no prep or light prep game styles.

You appear to be labeling them as "casual games" by default, though. And you're definitely describing them using poorly conceived and absurd examples.

And I have commented on the specifice examples...and then been told "oh there is more to it" or there is "other stuff we did not mention" or most of all "I read it wrong".
It's clear to me: player wants something and says so. Player makes a rule check. DM does what player says. It's that simple. Yet you say it's not.

What you've described applies to everything in D&D, except I'd say the DM does what the rules say, which is also true of the games you're trying to talk about.

Player wants to hit the orc and says so. Player makes an attack roll. DM does what rules say.

Player wants to pick a lock. Player makes an ability check. DM does what rules say.

Player wants to avoid a danger. Player makes a saving throw. DM does what rules say.

This is the point. You're criticizing these rules for following the same structure that many rules in D&D follow. Meanwhile they're part of very different games, so thinking of them within the context of D&D is a bad idea.

And sure the character must be at a specific place and a right time and have the right skill and be reasonable...but once all that is met, the player can just say they want something. Then the player makes a game rule roll. Then the GM does whatever the player wants.

How is this different than a player in D&D wanting their character to climb a wall?

Except the problem is the GM, if they are not a fan/buddy of the players, is neutral. I make secret back doors in some places based on the game simulated reality of where I think they should be.

And a play can do that....but much more often will make self serving easy button things to their own advantage.

Again....this is the Rulebook example: Character finds front door guarded. Character walks to the back and uses a skill to look for a secret door. Player makes rule check. DM says 'yup, you find the secret door(that the GM just created for the character).

But you're not even considering what happens if the roll fails.

In D&D, if such a roll failed (or if your notes said no secret door was present) you'd just say, "You don't find a secret entrance" and they'd all be back to the front gate. And what will they do there? Make a roll (or several, perhaps) and try to get what they want.

But in many other games, "nothing happens" is never an option for a failed roll. Something negative has to happen. So searching for a secret door at the back of the castle has a risk involved. Maybe they find it but it's also guarded. Or it's haunted by a dark spirit that's likely more dangerous than armed guards. Maybe they don't find it, and by the time they return to the front gate, there are additional guards there. Maybe they're spotted from the battlements as they make their way around the castle. Many games will have options for the GM to use based no what makes sense in the game world.

Ultimately, what you're doing is forcing the conflict to go to the one you've had in mind... the front gate.

Other types of games are more open to there being more than one way to face or avoid an obstacle.

It's just the Player Lead way is not a good way. Any time, under all the restrictions of when, where and how, they player can "just say" things are in the game. This is Easy Button play at best, or just Full Exploit Code at worst.

It's not. You clearly lack the experience to say that.

Well, that is the exact example. Character looks for secret door, Player makes roll, GM says "the secret door is right in front of you". so how is that not giving the player exactly what they wanted?

In D&D, the player says they look for a secret door, and make a roll, and then the DM says "the secret door is right in front of you".

The differences are that in one, the DM decided that it was there prior to play, and in the other, if the roll is a failure, something bad is going to happen.

I guess the part your missing here is how indirect it was. The players say they want a type of game, but that is it. They don't get control over anything once they utter those words.

Okay. I was trying to get a sense of how your players contribute to play, and this seemed like a good example, but now you're saying it wasn't really all that meaningful.

I noted it felt that the examples did not work out of context....but it does not seem like anyone can offer them in context.
They are very different. A player asks for a type of game and has less then zero input on anything after saying that vs a player with a character at set times and places can alter the game reality using a special rule.

I wouldn't say "alter" so much as "establish". Something can only be altered if it already exists. If there's not specific prep about something, then it's unestablished.

Part of being a good GM. Note not once ever did they say "I want x", make a roll, and then I did that for them....

Then how do you play?

I guess your going back to the anti-prep/anti-detail idea? Let me know? The complaint I'm talking about is where players don't like that they can't create and alter the games fiction Outside The Game, because the GM has everything written down in Stone.

That depends on the game and the GM. Even with D&D, I don't write everything down, and even what I do write down may not be "written in stone". I generally only treat what has been established in play as being certain.

The GM makes the Tower Terrible with lots of notes. It has no back secret door. The character wanders over and the players says "I want a back door". GM says nope, I Have Spoken and points to the game notes.

So the idea is if "the tower place" is just a "vague thing" with little or no notes....a player can say "I want a back door" and the GM will just blink and say "oh, ok, why not...poof...there is a back door" becasue they have no 'notes in stone'.

Is this what your talking about?

No, not exactly. You're taking a game process that works for another game and trying to say how it works in D&D. But it wasn't designed for D&D, so it's a poor fit. But you seem to only be able to conceive of games working like D&D, so you're not at all understanding how such a rule could actually work well in another game.