Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9097396" data-attributes="member: 6790260">Because chance is only relevant to the examples due to removing the GM-control angle. In absence of a controlling figure like a GM, dice or other random-number generators are the most common choice for producing fictional states without simply authoring the whole thing yourself. Many truly single-player games work this way. Something like Dogs in the Vineyard can also achieve something kinda-sorta like this via players wagering against one another for what they want to have happen, and I'm sure there are other systems besides.Also, I don't think Pemerton was even remotely trying to imply that roulette is higher agency than blackjack. Almost certainly the reverse. There is no way to meaningfully predict roulette without actively cheating (e.g. controlling the board.) You can count cards in blackjack (though Nevada casinos will ask you to stop playing if they think you are doing so, and it is actually illegal to use a device to help you count cards.)No. It equates an increase of agency with a decrease in influence. You cannot influence anything in roulette, and cannot realistically do so in blackjack. (I mean, you could try by intentionally busting to drain the deck of cards! But that's a losing strategy.) To continue using games that mix chance and skill (quite appropriate, given D&D's mechanics), poker would be yet higher on the agency spectrum, because of the ability to bluff and the betting mechanics. Conversely, we get the phrase "a crapshoot" because the player has little influence over the actual results in craps, it's all on the dice.Lacking information is one of the ways to lose influence, and chance is a prominent way of not having information, but far from the only way. Another way is illusionism, where facts that were true yesterday are no longer true today. A third is having unreliable sources of information, e.g. a GM secretly determining the result of a Perception check and then saying, "You see nothing out of the ordinary." Is that a "nothing out of the ordinary" because there is nothing to see, or because there IS something to see but you missed it? That's a lack of information, and can affect influence. (And, to be clear since I know I will get jumped on for this if I'm not extremely explicit every single time: Players not being omnicient is absolutely fine; it is when they are not given even the opportunity to learn that things become a problem.)But an absence of information is not the only cause of an absence of influence. Lacking tools, or having tools that are mostly useless, also results in an absence of influence. This is what a lot of people bring up in conversations about "mundane vs magic" or, to use the D&D version of that conflict, "Fighter vs Wizard." And why it's so frustrating to be told "well the Fighter can just get creative!" ANYONE can do that! Anyone can apply creativity to their surroundings! Wizards can be creative AND warp reality.Of course, I myself am skeptical of the "tactical infinity" so often discussed, as I find far, far too many GMs are rather more interested in tactical subfinity: "only those things I, the GM, think are possible, regardless of how poorly that reflects either actual IRL possibility, fun gameplay, or engaging narrative." The possibilities are actually more limited than they would be for an appropriately-talented IRL person attempting to do things. The problem of iterative probability is a good demonstration of this. (GMs failing to understand that asking for 5 checks in a row, even if you have an 80% chance to succeed each time, is actually a two thirds chance to fail.) The problem of perverse incentives is another. (GMs saying how annoying they find murderhobos and how much they wish players would just be heroic, only to actually run a world where mercy is "rewarded" with enemy reinforcements and "allies" are consistently just itching to betray the PCs.)I don't think that really equates to agency--more like the foundation thereof. That is, it would be a bit like saying that modern science is statistics, and nothing more. It would be absolutely correct if you meant that only in the sense that the science of statistical analysis is the beating heart of modern scientific study. It would be absolutely wrong if you meant it in the sense that science is nothing more than statistical analysis, since experimental design, data collection, theoretical modeling, and post-analysis interpretation are all critical parts of science that are not part of statistical analysis.I do expect that the agreements made before entering the magic circle are binding. If they aren't, then the magic circle is pointless and the exercise is simply one of dancing to someone else's tune. We may as well not even bother with the pretense.</blockquote>

Verification