Difference between revision 5 and current revision
Summary: \[\[gravatar:.*\]\]\n? →
< [[gravatar:http://www.kootenaymurph.blogspot.com wickedmurph:00581e1200ef35034e76b457531ab5af]]
< [[gravatar: Philo Pharynx:68a4cfc2bd6d9da7edc929481133e733]]
< [[gravatar: AlexSchroeder:e33b88db6bc04e1c93db25c702baea28]]
When I DM’ed a 2e game in university (back in the late ‘90’s - uhg), one of the characters had the ability to speak with plants. My knee-jerk reaction as the DM was “what the fuck would plants have to say”, so the first few times he used the power, I basically gave him no use.
Then, one of my players (who was also a DM in our group, but for non-D&D games) pulled me aside and said - “He was really excited when he got that power, and just because you don’t like it, doesn’t mean it should be useless”. That comment really changed my DMing style. To the point that now I tend to give characters the benefit of the doubt on their skills and powers.
Some DM’s don’t agree with this, but from my perspective, you should reward characters for decisions made in character design. If somebody has dumped everything into Diplomacy, then they should be a god in scenarios relating to diplomacy.
– wickedmurph 2012-10-12 17:19 UTC
Well said Murph. And yes, following this will soemtimes make things harder on the GM. Suck it up.
As for the hypothesis that you can either have player agency during creation or during play, I call that a poor excuse. Giving the GM more power does not magically produce player agency. GM agency can be used to increase or drastically decrease the player’s agency.
Let’s take your example about trying to convince the guard. Why did it fail? With some GM’s it could be that having the guard get cooperative at that moment wouldn’t be convenient to the plot. In this case, GM agency directly negates player agency, both at character creation and at the table. The GM who prefers rules will be enabling the player’s choices, both at character creation and in his choice to use diplomacy on this particular guard instead of cold-cocking him.
Note that this doesn’t prove that strict rules interpretation favors player agency either. We can come up with lots of scenarios that show the opposite. I don’t think the two are related at all. Player agency happens when the GM lets it happen. I’ve seen it in rules-heavy games and rules-light games.
– Philo Pharynx 2012-10-12 18:04 UTC
I agree: strict rules interpretation is independent of player agency.
I find the dichotomy “player agency during creation or during play” to be an exageration. I’ll try to reformulate: I think we reduce our agency later in the game if we make a lot of decisions during character creation or while levelling up. If a character is a good diplomat and a bad mountaineer, then no matter what you say or do later in the game, the character will be a good diplomat and a bad mountaineer. It doesn’t matter that the DM can take our agency away at any time. That can always happen. As a player, we are reducing our freedom to choose now by making choices earlier in the game. I think that to regain control over our character’s destiny, we could make a list options such as the following:
In a game with less front-loading of skills and feats and more emphasis on player skill, I expect more of the following:
It’s not perfect, but I prefer the second set over the first set of options.
– AlexSchroeder 2012-10-12 20:54 UTC