D&D General What is player agency to you?

[pemerton]

I think the issue is that it's Fortune in the Middle, which is an unusual fit for D&D but a common technique for narr games.

But not that unusual for D&D. In his DMG Gygax embraces FitM both for hit point depletion, and for saving throw resolution.

 

[pemerton]

I am not sure how this is relevant

Either the mechanics are die rolls, as you said in the previous post, then the DM authority comes from rules, and not the mechanics, or the mechanics include the rules, then it comes from the rules part of the mechanics. In either case the point I was replying to was

What distinguishes the mechanics of the game from the rules of the game?

If those are the same, then you are simply wrong. If they are different, then that may be true, but predominantly because the mechanics can be overruled by the DM rather than integrating with his authority) or are incomplete, leaving such decisions to the DM.

That still seems to be accurate, no matter whether you lump the rules in with the mechanics or not.

Mechanics is generally used to describe a particular process - rolling dice, manipulating numbers, etc.

Rules is normally used to describe the requirements, permissions etc that govern game participants in the play of the game.

A rule may give a participant a permission to use a mechanical process (eg in Burning Wheel, to call for a Duel of Wits) or may oblige a participant to use a mechanical process (eg in 5e D&D, to mark of a spell slot as used if their PC casts a spell).

It doesn't follow from this distinction between rules and mechanics that the GM is at liberty to change the rules or to depart from mandated mechanical processes.

 

[FrogReaver]

It doesn't say that, though. By RAW it can only be cast AFTER you are hit. For it to be an "about to get hit" moment, it has to be before you learn the result of the attack. Perhaps you can be told the number and can guestimate whether you might be hit or not. But it has to be before you learn that you are hit or it's too late and you are rewinding time.

I’d suggest that’s just a natural language thing. Imagine how needlessly wordy it would have been to say: reaction - an attack where the attack roll prior to applying this spells effect would be successful.

 

[Micah Sweet]

But not that unusual for D&D. In his DMG Gygax embraces FitM both for hit point depletion, and for saving throw resolution.

Both necessary evils at the time that could and have been done better.

 

[mamba]

It doesn't follow from this distinction between rules and mechanics that the GM is at liberty to change the rules or to depart from mandated mechanical processes.

but it follows from the rules, if the rules say so, as they do in D&D

 

[FrogReaver]

With you there.

Near agreement!

You lost me. I haven't seen anyone do that, and I personally wouldn't. I definitely consider them related, but distinct.

I’m fairly certain it was done really early in this thread a few times and I know for a fact it’s been done in previous agency discussion threads in this site. I’m not pulling this out of a hat. It’s personally happened to me. I’ve talked about character agency and people have chimed in that characters don’t have agency - essentially shutting down my entire point on that 1 technicality because they viewed my use of ‘character agency’ as literally claiming characters have agency instead of the agency a player has via control of their character. I think avoiding that scenario by using different jargon would only aid conversation.

Because I think it is more effective communication this way.

It’s funny. Everything i said could be summarized as claiming it’s ‘more effective communication. Yet i provided the reasons why I thought that. You didn’t. So I’ll ask. Why do you think that is more effective communication?

Also, what on earth--"heavily biased toward one side"? Where do you get that from?

It’s the logical extension of my number 3 point which you disputed as if I were making it up.

If your jargon insists I use the term character agency and I’ve had strong pushback for using that very term in the past then that’s setting me up for failure and thus heavily biasing the jargon toward your side (even though you personally wouldn’t do the thing I’m talking about)

If anything, I see exactly the reverse. By declaring that character agency is really just a subset of player agency, and thus nothing could possibly be said, you're cutting off the entire possibility of further discussion or contrast.

I don’t understand this - you saw me describe the very thing using my proposed jargon that you are saying I’m preventing from being described. You even commented that we had reached the same place. So please elaborate on the sudden change of heart?

I assume you are familiar with "stance theory"? Character agency would be expressed in things like actor stance. Player agency would be expressed in director stance. Pawn can go either way (since it isn't really much about the character qua character), and author I would say leans toward player agency but in narrow circumstances would express as character agency instead.

Do you consider these stances to be equally irrelevant, then, with pawn and actor merely being subsets of author and/or director stance?

I’m not particularly familiar with stance theory. I’ve heard it in passing and from the little I know of it it’s not intuitive to me at all. So I don’t think I can comment.

 

[pemerton]

I’d suggest that’s just a natural language thing. Imagine how needlessly wordy it would have been to say: reaction - an attack where the attack roll prior to applying this spells effect would be successful.

This doesn't make the issue go away, I don't think. How does the character know that the only thing standing between them and the risk of death is to conjure up a magical shield?

D&D actually has lots of similar things. For instance, in real life I am always at risk of mispronouncing words or stumbling over my words when I speak. Or sneezing unexpectedly. But the player of a D&D spell caster knows that their character will never experience such a thing when speaking the words of a spell.

A fighter player knows that their PC will never drop their sword when they draw it.

Whereas the player of a high CHA and/or proficient in social skills PC doesn't have the same knowledge - they may nevertheless roll a failed check, and one narration of failure might be a mis-speaking, or a sudden sneeze. A player of a high DEX and/or Sleight of Hand proficient PC is always at risk of having a failure narrated as losing their grip on something. Etc.

 

[pemerton]

Both necessary evils at the time that could and have been done better.

3E D&D gets rid of FitM saving throws, to the extreme detriment of the fighter!

I don't know of any version of D&D that gets rid of FitM hit points.

 

[FrogReaver]

This doesn't make the issue go away, I don't think. How does the character know that the only thing standing between them and the risk of death is to conjure up a magical shield?

Because they can see they are about to be hit if they don’t do something?

D&D actually has lots of similar things. For instance, in real life I am always at risk of mispronouncing words or stumbling over my words when I speak. Or sneezing unexpectedly. But the player of a D&D spell caster knows that their character will never experience such a thing when speaking the words of a spell.

Im not sure the point. Are you advocating for random rolls to see if you sneezed or mispronounced?

A fighter player knows that their PC will never drop their sword when they draw it.

Not disputed but still unclear the point.

Whereas the player of a high CHA and/or proficient in social skills PC doesn't have the same knowledge - they may nevertheless roll a failed check, and one narration of failure might be a mis-speaking, or a sudden sneeze.

I don’t think that would ever be my narration. Generally d&d narration reveals something about the NPC and not the PC being incompetent (though If the player is leaning into incompetence of some kind, like character is dumb, then that could be fair game)

A player of a high DEX and/or Sleight of Hand proficient PC is always at risk of having a failure narrated as losing their grip on something. Etc.

Assuming you have in mind pick pocketing - I’d generally use the narration that they never got their hands in the item in the first place.

 

[pemerton]

Are you advocating for random rolls to see if you sneezed or mispronounced?

Not advocating. Simply noting that in D&D the player can have a type of certainty that the character does not.

Rolemaster (for instance) is different in this respect.