Schrodinger Plot

[Ruslan]

There are two opposing powers in RPGs: "Player agency" vs "Stats matter".
On one hand, players want to be in charge of their own choices. They don't want to be spoon-fed or railroaded. On the other hand, players want their character's stats to matter. A character with high Insight score wants it to be useful. He doesn't want to be hobbled by his own naivety and inability to see through the DM's lies. But, if the DM spoon-feeds him with "your character wisely figured out the guy is lying to him", at the same time it may seem deflated.

Could we not have both? Player agency and stats matter at the same time? Introducing, Schrodinger Plot, where the players are 100% in charge of their own decisions, and the dice & stats only affect the QUALITY of those decisions.

Example to make a point: Party arrives at a river. They have a choice between fording it, and wasting time looking for a bridge.
The DM knows the river is safe, and no monsters lurk in its waters.


Party Ranger: Do I know if anything dangerous lives in this river?
DM: Make a Survival check.
Ranger: got 17.
DM: You believe the river is safe. Only small fish live here.
Ranger: guys, it's safe to cross.
Party: we follow the Ranger. He won't steer us wrong.

Now, there's nothing wrong about playing this way. In fact, most of us do. But I can't help feel there is a bit of player agency missing. In this particular case, the dice basically told the party to ford the river. Well, strictly speaking, this is not the case, the dice only said "your character believes it's safe", but it amounted to the same.

Same example, with Schrodinger Plot: The DM haven't actually decided if the river is safe ... yet.


DM: <describes river>
Ranger: guys, it's safe to cross. Nothing dangerous here. <see what happened there? He made a decision without resorting to dice>
Party: we follow the Ranger. He won't steer us wrong.
DM: Ranger, make a Survival check. <NOW the dice come out to play>
Ranger: got a 17.
DM: you ford the river safely, with nothing but small fish nibbling on your ankles.

So you see, the difference is that the Ranger made a decision with no aid from the dice, and retroactively applies the dice and his skill to check if the decision was good or bad. Had the Ranger gotten a poor result on his Survival, he would have actually had steered the party wrong. The water could have been fouled and cause disease, or they could have been attacked by something.

When playing this way, the DM is encouraged, whenever the party makes a key decision, to have them make an appropriate skill check to see how good this decision was - but only after the fact! If the party decide to trust a shifty contact from the thieves' guild, the DM doesn't know in advance if the contact is a traitor or not. He will decide that by making an Insight check after the fact to see if they're ambushed or not. A player still decides himself whether to trust the contact or not, whether to ford the river or not. And stats still matter - a character with high Insight or Survival has more chance of having these decisions turn out right and less chance of having them backfire on him.

[Millstone85]

What about using two checks, one to evaluate the dangers of an action and one to attempt said action.
A successful first check would give the player an idea of the DC of the second check.

[smcmike]

Interesting idea, but requires careful thinking through.

Insight

Player: I like the cut of this guy's jib! I trust him.
DM: Ok, roll.
Player: 1. Hmm, looks like I misjudged him. I guess we should kill him?

Survival

Player 1: This river looks to dangerous to cross. (Rolls a 20)
DM: yup, good eye. That river would have totally killed all of you.
Player 2: (punches player 1 in the arm) why didn't you say "this river looks super easy to cross and is also made of healing potions."
Player 1: I thought about it, but decided to use my agency to pick a bad outcome.

Insight 2

DM: NPC approaches you, asking to help fight the Duke.
Player: i trust him. Insight 20. Yup, this guy is good.
DM: actually you sense something is a bit off about him.
Player: nope - I said he was good, and my roll confirmed it.
DM: but he's the BBEG!
Player: not anymore he isn't!

[JellyPooga]

There's a couple of problems I foresee with this;

1) "Runs" of luck. It happens, moderately frequently, that a player or players get a run of good or bad luck. If the players are calling the shots and the dice contradict them, then they haven't got the agency of feeling proficient at all (every river has a dangerous monster, every guard is working for the thieves guild, there's no treasure *anywhere*). If the players are calling the shots and the dice favour them, then nothing interesting happens (all the rivers are safe to cross, all the guards are legit and Hooray! Every time we search for treasure we come up in spades!). This can create a dissonance in the suspension of disbelief. Which leads me to...

2) Where's the plot? Players typically have less agency because they don't know what's going on behind the scenes. With this method of encounter resolution, the GM is constantly having to keep up with what the players are deciding to do. To take the river example; if they go looking for a bridge and roll high, the GM then has to invent a bridge where there may not have been one before. If the players decide that this bridge must be there for a reason and go looking for a village nearby and roll high...again, the GM is forced to create a village, probably on the fly. If the GM sets arbitrarily high DC's for things that the players are coming up with or flat ban-hammers them, then the whole point of the exercise of giving the players more agency is defeated.

Don't get me wrong; I love collaborative story-telling. It's great and there are some games that do it really well. I also like the players having agency to work with the GM to create new story elements, even on the fly. What I dislike is basing that agency on a random dice roll and further, also determining the success or failure of the PC's on that same roll.

tl;dr - Nice idea, but it needs some work. Separating the agency from the chance of success might be a good start.

[Ruslan]

Interesting idea, but requires careful thinking through.
Indeed it does. It seems you have not thought about it carefully and hence completely misunderstood it. Allow me to explain.


Insight

Player: I like the cut of this guy's jib! I trust him.
DM: Ok, roll.
Player: 1. Hmm, looks like I misjudged him. I guess we should kill him?
That's not how it works. The roll would be postponed until a point comes for the guy to betray the PCs.

Player: I like the cut of this guy's jib! I trust him.
<much time passes>
DM: Ok, roll Insight now.
Player: 1.
DM: Looks like you misjudged him. He stabs you.



Survival

Player 1: This river looks to dangerous to cross. (Rolls a 20)
DM: yup, good eye. That river would have totally killed all of you.
Player 2: (punches player 1 in the arm) why didn't you say "this river looks super easy to cross and is also made of healing potions."
Player 1: I thought about it, but decided to use my agency to pick a bad outcome.
The players in this example are just being trolls and not deserving of a response.


Insight 2

DM: NPC approaches you, asking to help fight the Duke.
Player: i trust him. Insight 20. Yup, this guy is good.
DM: actually you sense something is a bit off about him.
Player: nope - I said he was good, and my roll confirmed it.
DM: but he's the BBEG!
Player: not anymore he isn't!
This just shows a total misunderstanding of what Schrodinger plot is. The DM actually doesn't know initially if the NPC is the BBEG or not. The fact that "Insight 20" proved the player's read to be correct is not a bug but a feature.

[Temperjoke]

Well, don't forget the "accidentally right" potential too. Ranger rolls a 5 on his inspection of the river, but there actually isn't anything there at the moment anyways, so no one knows how bad that could have been, had the river beast been in that part of the river that day.

[Ruslan]

With this method of encounter resolution, the GM is constantly having to keep up with what the players are deciding to do.
It's not a bug. It's a feature. It's exactly the intent to have the GM having to keep up with what the players are deciding to do.


if they go looking for a bridge and roll high, the GM then has to invent a bridge where there may not have been one before.
There never was a bridge, but there also have never been an absence of a bridge. There was a Schrodinger bridge.


If the players decide that this bridge must be there for a reason and go looking for a village nearby and roll high...again, the GM is forced to create a village, probably on the fly. Again, you're saying it as if it's a bad thing, while it's exactly the kind of thing that is supposed to happen under this system.


tl;dr - Nice idea, but it needs some work. Separating the agency from the chance of success might be a good start.Any idea how?

[smcmike]

Indeed it does. It seems you have not thought about it carefully and hence completely misunderstood it. Allow me to explain.

I don't think I do, as I'll attempt to demonstrate. I do apologize if my response came off as flip, as I was just trying to provide some examples of things to think about.



The players in this example are just being trolls and not deserving of a response.


The point of this example is that there actually is not very much player agency on display here. The only thing the player could reasonably be expected to say is "this river looks easy to cross." Perhaps you could provide a counterexample if I'm misunderstanding this aspect.



This just shows a total misunderstanding of what Schrodinger plot is. The DM actually doesn't know initially if the NPC is the BBEG or not. The fact that "Insight 20" proved the player's read to be correct is not a bug but a feature.

Ok, and my point with this example is simply that the effects of using this system are more radical than you seem to have indicated. Where is the role of the DM if he can't even create a BBEG? I'm really wondering how you can construct any sort of plot at all when the basic nature of reality is determined by the dice on an ongoing basis.

Here's another example:

Player A: hmm, this cave looks scary. I'm going to roll Perception to see if there is anything lurking in the darkness.
Player B: no! Don't do that! If you succeed there will be something there!

[JellyPooga]

It's not a bug. It's a feature. It's exactly the intent to have the GM having to keep up with what the players are deciding to do.

The question then is; what's the point of the GM in this game? What agency does he get? Is he just the guy who fills in the blanks until the Players decide to roll up another curve-ball for him? How can he write any kind of plot for the PC's to follow or setting for them to play in if player agency is constantly changing the parameters? As I said, player agency is one thing, but this is heading into the territory of GM-less gaming.


Separating the agency from the chance of success might be a good start.

Any idea how?

Leave success rolls alone. Introduce a new mechanism for player agency. 13th Age has some nice ideas. Check out FATE as well.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

Part of the point of dice is to give up both player and DM agency to the powers of randomness in order to make the story less predictable and more exciting, and to resolve conflict. Agency isn't the end-all be-all of game design, lest we play free form.

I think this works best at a high level, without thinking about individual decisions. At the micro level, using Survival to know whether the river is safe is probably best used simply as a knowledge check, where a low roll is you know nothing, Jon Snow, and a high roll is that you know what's up. At a macro level, however, a bad series of survival rolls might lead the party directly to a scene where they and their wagon are stuck in the middle of a river with piranhas approaching. This also has a tendency to take away player agency (if you have an actual survivalist player in the group, you might want to play this part of the adventure in detail, for instance), but with the benefit of being much faster and focusing on the action.

[Millstone85]

I am not sure if I understand any of this.
DM: <describes river>
Ranger: guys, it's safe to cross. Nothing dangerous here. <see what happened there? He made a decision without resorting to dice>
Party: we follow the Ranger. He won't steer us wrong.
DM: Ranger, make a Survival check. <NOW the dice come out to play>
Ranger: got a 17.
DM: you ford the river safely, with nothing but small fish nibbling on your ankles.Mechanically, the player didn't decide the safety/peril of the river. The DM did, when he set the DC of the Survival check.

If a successful check means that, narratively, the river was completely safe all along, it is just another divorce between the game and the story.

And I don't see how it empowers the player in any way.

[Celcey]

I think it could be a fun idea, if that's the kind of game you want to play. It's not my personal style, and it doesn't work if you actually have decided things. I tend to make things up on the fly- I'll usually decide if the river is safe or not as they arrive at the river, but once I've made the decision, it's set. So this isn't something that would work in my games so much.

That being said, I do think there's something to allowing players rolls to have an effect, especially nat ones and twenties. For some things, like insight, I'll still role play the thing, but I'll put a finger to tell if they're lying as I talk. This way it's non-disruptive to the game, but still tells the players what they need to know.

[Theodoxus]

I would not enjoy running or playing in a game like this. If every aspect of the game world is set at random, for a particular DC on a specific skill - no thanks. Especially if the circumstances change.

Come to a river, think it's safe, start to cross, roll low, get attacked by a herd of crocs, flee the river and rest up/heal. Come back the next day, decide to look for a bridge instead - roll high, boom - miraculous bridge that wasn't there yesterday.

[mgshamster]

I always thought player agency was about making decisions matter and meaningfully affect the campaign and the world.

Such as when deciding how to solve a problem, player agency is allowing the player's solution to actually work, rather than always have a problem only be solved the way the book or GM says it can be solved. It's about giving players information and options and allowing them to meaningfully employ their options and allow their decisions to have a greater impact on the campaign.

Which doesn't seem to really involve the issue with dice or specific abilities written down on a character sheet. Abilities on a character sheet may help guide how you solve a problem, and dice can determine how your decisions play out if your decision involves a conflict where the outcome is uncertain.

You can create and support player agency by setting up events that happen around and to the PCs, then allowing them to react and solve them however they choose. How they choose to solve them (or not solve them) effects the world. Or you can railroad them by forcing them to take specific actions or forcing them to go to specific locations whether they want to or not. And you can do this whether they have poor or good stats.

[Tanarii]

It seems to me like this complete removes player agency. They aren't making any decisions. The dice are making them all.

[awa]

It also seems like it would need an exceptional dm to design npcs and locations with literal seconds of warning time and at the same time hobbling that dms ability to use his skill to its potential.

As a player this would not be for me I like a good story and i'm willing to suffer not having 100% control.
As a dm I would never touch a system like this.

[Ruslan]

The question then is; what's the point of the GM in this game?
In your scenario I need to create a village and populate it with believable NPCs (priest, village elder, random farmer, etc). I need the NPCs to interact with the PCs. I need the village and its population react believably to what the PCs do. Also, once one Schrodinger point was resolved, I need to create future potential Schrodinger points. There's plenty of point to the GM.


roll high, boom - miraculous bridge that wasn't there yesterday.Can you please point the exact spot in my posts that convinced you I'm advocating the appearance of a "miraculous bridge that wasn't there yesterday" ?

[Fighting_Ferret]

I see player agency as letting them make informed choices... the characters only know what the DM chooses them to know...but they should be able to get information about the world around them, especially if they are experienced and have skills that could relate further information.

Is the river calm? Is it low? Is it deep? Is it raging? Has it rained recently? Are the banks level or are they steep? My ranger has forded rivers before...what does he think about this one? Do I know anything about this area or have a map? Are certain creatures known to inhabit this area?

All of those question could/should be answerable by the DM (IF they make a difference to the outcome) If the river is just a river, then make a hidden roll and tell them that the river looks relatively fordable. They decide to cross no issues. [Note: The roll the DM here is just to keep the players wondering what may have happened, it also sets you up to be able to make rolls in secret, where they do not get to see the roll on the die... which keeps them from the certainty of success. remember, if there is no cost for failure, then there is no need to roll.] If the players don't trust their information...they may decide to follow the river looking for easier crossing (which may or may not be available.)

Same scenario, but a strong thunderstorm is currently sweeping through the area. The PCs are escorting prisoners away from an enemy encampment and being pursued. The river is raging and the banks look to be sloped and slippery from the dirt banks being turned into mud. The same question comes up... can we ford the river here... [as the DM you would still roll the dice behind the screen and relate to the PCs what their character would know about the situation.] The players then make their decision based on the character's knowledge. Given the situation...there is several things that could go wrong...and several things the players could do to make the most of their situation. They can even follow the river hoping to locate a better way across... or all other kinds of options.

Another river scenario... the PCs come to a river in the middle of a swamp/prairie/jungle/desert... they don't know the land, but from rumors told in local villages... the slow moving waters can be the home to several dangerous beasts... (giant constrictors, giant crocodiles, giant frogs, bull sharks, piranha, etc) same thing, DM rolls for the player, keeping the results hidden and giving out the description of what the character can detect... the players have to a gain make a decision... this time with the knowledge that something could most definitely be in the water...

Player agency is about letting the players make decisions from the perspective of what their character knows... which requires an active DM to inform them of what they know about their surroundings based on things like class, ability scores, skills, and experience... the character makes the decision with a certain amount of certainty as to what the outcome may or may not be.

[awa]

the more I think about it the less I like it
you make all these believable npcs but one bad/ good role has them immediately acting in a wildly unpredictable way. I think I agree with the people who believe this removes more player agency then it adds because they can no longer make rational choices based on the information they have.

[Ruslan]

Is the river calm? Is it low? Is it deep? Is it raging? Has it rained recently? Are the banks level or are they steep? My ranger has forded rivers before...what does he think about this one? Do I know anything about this area or have a map? Are certain creatures known to inhabit this area?Yeah, most of this falls under <DM describes river>.
Except 'Do I know anything about ...'.

The player decides what he knows. The character's skill check then determines whether it's correct. That's the whole point.

A character with poor skill modifier will be "talking out of rear end" most of the time; the dice will prove him wrong often, and it's better if the other PCs ignore the would-be-know-it-all who can't back up his mouth with actual knowledge.

On the other hand, when a knowledgeable Ranger makes a statement about the kind of creatures that live in the river, he's more likely to be correct.


Same scenario, but a strong thunderstorm is currently sweeping through the area. The PCs are escorting prisoners away from an enemy encampment and being pursued. The river is raging and the banks look to be sloped and slippery from the dirt banks being turned into mud. The same question comes up... can we ford the river here... [as the DM you would still roll the dice behind the screen and relate to the PCs what their character would know about the situation.] The players then make their decision based on the character's knowledge. Given the situation...there is several things that could go wrong...and several things the players could do to make the most of their situation. They can even follow the river hoping to locate a better way across... or all other kinds of options.What you have described is exactly the opposite of my proposal. I feel like I'm describing plans for an electric vehicle and you're responding with a detailed manual of how to fill a gas tank with gasoline.


the more I think about it the less I like it
you make all these believable npcs but one bad/ good role has them immediately acting in a wildly unpredictable way. I'm sorry if I said anything to convince you that one roll can always change an NPC unpredictably. Some plot points will be determined by the DM to be Schrodinger points, but mostly a villager is just a villager. No, not everyone is a Schrodinger BBEG in disguise.

<or is he? Dun Dun>

[Z3ro]

So you see, the difference is that the Ranger made a decision with no aid from the dice, and retroactively applies the dice and his skill to check if the decision was good or bad.

This is the part where your idea breaks down. Part of the point of the dice is to simulate things the characters know that the players don't. I'm not a master tracker; I know absolutely nothing about if a river is safe to cross. If I'm playing a ranger, though, my character should know. And the way we represent that is through the dice.

Otherwise, there's no agency when the player makes the decision. How did the ranger decide the river was safe? If the DM described it as safe, there's no agency there. If the DM didn't describe it very well, there's still no agency as the player doesn't have the knowledge needed to make an accurate decision. The players need the right input if they're going to get the right output.

[Ruslan]

This is the part where your idea breaks down. Part of the point of the dice is to simulate things the characters know that the players don't. I'm not a master tracker; I know absolutely nothing about if a river is safe to cross. If I'm playing a ranger, though, my character should know. And the way we represent that is through the dice.

Otherwise, there's no agency when the player makes the decision. How did the ranger decide the river was safe? If the DM described it as safe, there's no agency there. If the DM didn't describe it very well, there's still no agency as the player doesn't have the knowledge needed to make an accurate decision. The players need the right input if they're going to get the right output.In any way he wanted to. It's up to the ranger's player to decide how he came to thing conclusion. "I see no tracks of anything dangerous", "the river is too shallow for large monsters", or as simple as "I have a hunch". I am not spoonfeeding the ranger's player into anything. He can take anything in my description and base his decision on this.

That would, of course, require the player to trust his character's wilderness skills. In other words, it would require the character to know something the player does not. That's both the player agency and "my character should know" at one.

[smcmike]

It seems to me like this complete removes player agency. They aren't making any decisions. The dice are making them all.

Yeah, it's a neat trick, suggesting that the player is making more decisions when actually they are making fewer, or perhaps simply making the same decision, but with less information.

To return to the river:

Let's say that the Old Fashioned DM has decided that there is a hidden danger in this river. It is deeper and faster than it looks, and attempting to cross it will cause problems (in some form). The DM sets a DC of 15 to notice this danger.

The players have a whole number of potential choices to make. First, do they roll at all? I think it's fair to expect players to recognize that crossing a river offers inherent potential dangers, so it's not a huge player/character knowledge problem to punish them if they just dive in.

Second, if they roll poorly, they know they rolled poorly, and are still left with a choice - how to get across a river without much information about how dangerous it is. (Edit - or don't know. Regardless, they are using this ability to gain knowledge).

If they roll well, they have information, but still have a challenge, which can be overcome a number of ways - ride up the river, ride down the river, build a boat, dive in and trust your swimming, wait for flood waters to calm, send your best athlete over to string a guiderope - so many choices (these choices apply with less info too). Choices = agency.

Schrodinger's DM sets the DC at 15 too. Players come to the river. The ranger declares "this river is safe." This isn't really a decision at all - he's just saying "I would like to cross this river safely." Saying anything else would be "trolling." No choice = no decision = no agency.

The players attempt to cross the river. On a 15 or above, the succeed, with no problems. If the ranger fails, the current sweeps them away. Again, they haven't made any choices at all, other than charging into a totally blind success/failure roll. There is no chance of them discovering that the river is dangerous, then coming up with a plan to avoid the danger. Where is the agency?

[Tanarii]

Lol smcmike you read my mind from one little post and turned it into a detailed essay. Well done.

[Ruslan]

If they roll well, they have information, but still have a challenge, which can be overcome a number of ways - ride up the river, ride down the river, build a boat, dive in and trust your swimming, wait for flood waters to calm, send your best athlete over to string a guiderope - so many choices (these choices apply with less info too). Choices = agency.

Schrodinger's DM sets the DC at 15 too. Players come to the river. The ranger declares "this river is safe." This isn't really a decision at all - he's just saying "I would like to cross this river safely." Saying anything else would be "trolling." No choice = no decision = no agency.

I'm sorry, I may have missed the part in which Schrodinger's DM prevents the players from riding down the river, up the river, building a boat, waiting or sending a guiderope.

[smcmike]

I'm sorry, I may have missed the part in which Schrodinger's DM prevents the players from riding down the river, up the river, building a boat, waiting or sending a guiderope.

Schrodinger's DM has removed the possibility that the ranger sees that the river is dangerous prior to crossing.

If he succeeds, the river is not dangerous. If he fails, the roll happens as they try to cross the river which he had declared safe.

Really what you've done is change knowledge skills into performance skills. Imagine there is no survival skill or other skill to gain information. The players come to a river. They quiz the DM for information about the river, and the Ranger eventually says "I bet I can swim it." Athletics check time.

This is essentially exactly the same as your survival check, though I'm not clear how much DM quizzing you are suggesting, since the very nature of the river is up in the air until the roll.

One other problem - ranger says "looks safe to me." Druid says "me too." Ranger rolls as 1. Druid rolls a 20. Now what?

[Fighting_Ferret]

What you have described is exactly the opposite of my proposal. I feel like I'm describing plans for an electric vehicle and you're responding with a detailed manual of how to fill a gas tank with gasoline.


I'm sorry, but my initial statement was a disagreement with your proposal and with the definition of player agency. I then went on the describe player agency in several differing scenarios.

The first, which was also your example, was a situation where the player had no information to make a choice, and furthermore, there was no real consequences of the player's choice. I pointed that out and asked things that the character would need to know to make their decision... you let the character make a decision and then let the dice determine if there was an outcome.

Your way the character does whatever he wants and the outcome is affected by their skill and luck of the die. Your ranger comes to the river and says nothing is wrong here (his character has no information to base this on... the party says OK, let's cross the river... they roll. The roll determines what does/doesn't happen... What happens next? You say it is up to the player.

My way, the characters is given information that they gathered, as well as an idea of what degree to trust that information. There may not be a bad outcome from the first simple scenario... the PCs decide to cross and nothing happens... maybe I require a STR/DEX check to deal with turbulent waters and a PC with poor stats fails... worst thing that happens is the party is delayed, the PC gets wet and ends up a few feet downriver and has to make a swim check to cross, which could lead to several other outcomes. Or I could say that as they cross that happens... and continue down with a brief explanation of events.

The difference is that my PCs might have gleaned that the river WAS turbulent and that it might not be a good idea to cross here. They may say, no, let's follow the river instead and look for easier crossing. You idea they decide to cross and based on the roll... something/nothing happens. The player didn't make an informed decision... they just made a decision. In both cases the dice are likely to come into play, but my PCs have a good idea that a challenge has been presented, whereas yours don't.

I understand your ideas and I am not trying to support it. I am disagreeing and comparing the two, logically. If you like the idea you are presenting, then please run it and I hope you and your players enjoy it. I personally disagree with it, and am offering my opinion with examples of the difference. I am not personally attacking you or saying you are wrong.

edit: I see that you think the dice roll in my examples is what is contrary to your proposal. Those dice rolls behind a screen... are there as a point of subterfuge, due to the characters being controlled by a meta-knowledge having player... as a player you know that without a dice roll, there is no danger... so you give them a placebo in the form of a hidden dice roll.. that dice roll represents to the player that a decision is at hand, and actually has no affect on the information presented, unless there is an actual difficulty/threat involved, and therefore a consequence of making a poor decision or failing to see the threat/difficulty. As I said before... if there is no consequence of the players decision, then there is no need for a roll(s) for any reason whatsoever.

[MaxWilson]

So you see, the difference is that the Ranger made a decision with no aid from the dice, and retroactively applies the dice and his skill to check if the decision was good or bad. Had the Ranger gotten a poor result on his Survival, he would have actually had steered the party wrong. The water could have been fouled and cause disease, or they could have been attacked by something.

When playing this way, the DM is encouraged, whenever the party makes a key decision, to have them make an appropriate skill check to see how good this decision was - but only after the fact! If the party decide to trust a shifty contact from the thieves' guild, the DM doesn't know in advance if the contact is a traitor or not. He will decide that by making an Insight check after the fact to see if they're ambushed or not. A player still decides himself whether to trust the contact or not, whether to ford the river or not. And stats still matter - a character with high Insight or Survival has more chance of having these decisions turn out right and less chance of having them backfire on him.

That's a pretty cool scenario. I'll talk it over with my players. I imagine there are times when I'd veto (i.e. stop him and make him roll the dice early because I've already decided what the reality is) but I can imagine adopting "Schrodinger declarations" in some scenarios as a game structure. It just needs a good social contract so everybody knows when a given action is intended as a Schrodinger declaration vs. the Ranger willfully and blindly ignoring his own better judgment and/or lying to the other PCs; but coming up with such a social contract shouldn't be difficult.

Thanks for sharing.

[Ruslan]

Schrodinger's DM has removed the possibility that the ranger sees that the river is dangerous prior to crossing.

If he succeeds, the river is not dangerous. If he fails, the roll happens as they try to cross the river which he had declared safe.
Not really. If the forest is known to be dangerous, and the DM described the river in an ominous way (read: the ranger can surmise the Survival check DC is higher than he can handle), he can declare "seems dangerous to me. Let's look for another way". Guess what, since the DM set the DC to be very high and the Ranger was likely to fail it, the player was right!


One other problem - ranger says "looks safe to me." Druid says "me too." Ranger rolls as 1. Druid rolls a 20. Now what?
The DMG already gives a solution for that. It's called 'group checks'. Alternatively, you can apply the Assist rules (the Druid is Assisting the Ranger, giving him Advantage on his check). Anyway, the rules to handle it are already there.

[Millstone85]

Not really. If the forest is known to be dangerous, and the DM described the river in an ominous way (read: the ranger can surmise the Survival check DC is higher than he can handle), he can declare "seems dangerous to me. Let's look for another way". Guess what, since the DM set the DC to be very high and the Ranger was likely to fail it, the player was right!A river with a very high DC is a dangerous river, at least as a game element if not story. The DM has decided the river was dangerous before the player did. The only real difference with the usual method is that the player didn't try to complete the DM's description with an observation roll.

[smcmike]

Not really. If the forest is known to be dangerous, and the DM described the river in an ominous way (read: the ranger can surmise the Survival check DC is higher than he can handle), he can declare "seems dangerous to me. Let's look for another way". Guess what, since the DM set the DC to be very high and the Ranger was likely to fail it, the player was right! '.

Again, you are essentially removing information checks altogether, and replacing them with performance checks and reading the DM's storytelling for clues.

The scenario you just described is basically the DM describing the river in an ominous way, the players deciding based upon the description, and a check when they decide to cross the river. This is traditionally a swim check, or perhaps balance (or their 5e equivalents) c

[Ruslan]

Again, you are essentially removing information checks altogether, and replacing them with performance checks and reading the DM's storytelling for clues.

The scenario you just described is basically the DM describing the river in an ominous way, the players deciding based upon the description, Yes, it's a social interaction in a roleplaying game. The players and the DM interact socially. You almost say it like it's a bad thing.

As for information, yes, you are absolutely correct, there are no information checks. The player himself decides which information to glean from the DM interaction. If he has high relevant skill - he's more likely to be right.

[uraniumrooster]

I use a system similar to this when the players go off the rails and make decisions I haven't completely prepared for, or if they present an idea I hadn't thought of that I like. It makes improvising scenarios and encounters a bit easier as the players take on a share of the work.

I don't think it necessarily adds any player agency, it's just a different approach. Player's success or failure is still determined by die rolls, but the world's content itself doesn't need to be as explicitly laid out in advance. I think of it as more or less being the TRPG equivalent to procedural generation.

[Millstone85]

there are no information checks. The player himself decides which information to glean from the DM interaction.... and can not try to obtain additional information from the DM by having the character observe the thing of interest more attentively. Why not?

[Z3ro]

In any way he wanted to. It's up to the ranger's player to decide how he came to thing conclusion.

But what if I don't know the first thing about tracking? How am I supposed to come to any conclusion?



"I see no tracks of anything dangerous", "the river is too shallow for large monsters"

These require the DM to have the situation prepared ahead of time, the exact thing you were saying you didn't want to do. What this describes is either a DM winging things (fine, if you can do it), or a DM letting players create the world. In which case 1) why have a DM and 2) what's to stop the aforementioned river of healing potions?


He can take anything in my description and base his decision on this.

But descriptions require having a pre-set idea. Describing a raging river is a lot different than describing a calm brook. You've set the DCs, you're just calling it something else.


In other words, it would require the character to know something the player does not.

Once again, how am I supposed to access my character's knowledge without some sort of check? Otherwise it's just my knowledge (perception is a great example of this in actual play).

[Grod_The_Giant]

So basically the idea is that
The DM prompts the players with a vague outline ("there is a river")
The players come up with a description ("it looks safe") and a course of action ("let's cross it")
The dice are rolled to determine if they're right

If the check is successful, the course of action is appropriate and goes off roughly as planned ("we get to the other side")
If the check fails, the course of action is inappropriate and things go wrong ("oh no crocodiles!")
Yes?

The issue, I think, is that skills are a very poor tool for player agency. Skills are, ultimately, about overcoming specific challenges. "I climb this." "I know this." "I say this." You say a thing you want to do, and the die roll says if you're good enough to do it. You're never going to say anything other than "I succeed at this challenge that's being presented," because if you didn't want to climb the cliff/ford the river/persuade the guard you wouldn't be trying. All you're doing is, basically, asking the player to narrate his check a bit more, and possibly removing the step where you ask the DM questions to make a better judgement.

Agency, as mgshamster mentioned, is more about being able to make choices. If you're at a river you want to ford, there isn't really a choice. The choice occurred much earlier, when you decided to travel overland to Camelot instead of hiring a ship. Agency isn't saying "I don't trust this Duke," it's being able to investigate him and find out meaningful information.

Do you understand the difference?

[mgshamster]

Agency, as mgshamster mentioned, is more about being able to make choices. If you're at a river you want to ford, there isn't really a choice. The choice occurred much earlier, when you decided to travel overland to Camelot instead of hiring a ship. Agency isn't saying "I don't trust this Duke," it's being able to investigate him and find out meaningful information.

Hey, thanks for the mention! :)

Good post. I would add that agency is also about having your actions have a meaningful impact on the world.

So let's say you investigate the duke, acquire meaningful information, and then act on it. Does the GM allow you to act on it, designing an adventure to remove the duke from power and have the power vacuum actually effect the world? Or is the duke immune to your actions no matter what you do, because that's not what the adventure says you can do? Are you railroaded on to a specific pre-determined path?

To me that is what player agency is all about. Having your decisions have a meaningful impact on the world.

A lot of published adventures try to set it up so you have the illusion of player agency. Sure, as a player, you decided to travel to Camelot, but what you didn't know was that the adventure was either written to happen in Camelot the entire time and just guided you there, or the GM simply changed the adventure to take place in Camelot instead of London. Your decision to go there didn't change how things would play out and didn't have a meaningful impact on the campaign.

A published adventure that takes into account player agency is like Out of the Abyss, where after you leave the first city, you have multiple decisions on where to go next, and where you go literally shapes the events that happen in the adventure. If you were to play the adventure again with new PCs and you make different decisions, the events happen in a different order (some may not happen at all or happen in completely different area, which affects the world in a different way).

Or like some of those old 1e modules, where there was no actual adventure with a plot designed to be concluded, but rather just a description of an area. Take Keep on the Borderlands, for instance - it's a description of a locale and some monsters that you have to beat. But how you beat them is entirely up to you, which cave entrances you decide to go to completely dictates which monsters you encounter, your retreats allow different monsters to fill in where you cleared, which changes the composition and possibly the structure of the dungeons and caves for the next time you visit.

Your decisions and actions literally change the world for the next time you encounter that area. To me, that is what player agency is all about. Your choices and decisions matter.

[smcmike]

Yes, it's a social interaction in a roleplaying game. The players and the DM interact socially. You almost say it like it's a bad thing.

As for information, yes, you are absolutely correct, there are no information checks. The player himself decides which information to glean from the DM interaction. If he has high relevant skill - he's more likely to be right.

You misconstrue my position. I'm all for the social interaction and use of storytelling. I would point out, though, that we've come a ways from the Schrodinger model, where the river is dangerous if the player fails to describe it as safe, to a model where the river is described as dangerous by the DM, and the player uses his skill to cross it anyways.

The only difference between your system and a standard system where you've just stripped out the knowledge-type checks is what you call the check. In your world, you use wisdom to swim instead of strength. You also, I suppose, use wisdom instead of charisma to convince NPCs not to double cross you.

I like knowledge checks. They give the player another lever with which they can interact with the world. I do think they need to be carefully integrated into the storytelling, but that's just part of the art.

[Tanarii]

To me that is what player agency is all about. Having your decisions have a meaningful impact on the world.That's why I hate the term player agency. It often has this deeply ingrained implication that players are special snowflakes, and what they desire to happen should happen.

Players should be welcome to try and change the world. They shouldn't not have the option to take actions in-game. But choices should have consequences, and the resulting consequences don't have to be in line with the consequences the player envisioned when they took the action. Sometimes trying to remove the Duke from power should be extremely likely to end up with the PCs imprisoned or dead. Because the world shouldn't automatically bend to the PCs desires.

[MaxWilson]

So basically the idea is that
The DM prompts the players with a vague outline ("there is a river")
The players come up with a description ("it looks safe") and a course of action ("let's cross it")
The dice are rolled to determine if they're right

If the check is successful, the course of action is appropriate and goes off roughly as planned ("we get to the other side")
If the check fails, the course of action is inappropriate and things go wrong ("oh no crocodiles!")
Yes?

If I were going to attempt this technique, I'd make it a bit more explicit. As DM, I'd signal to players that "this is a Schrodinger river, feel free to play around with it" by some nonverbal or verbal cue, similar to how I "click!" for traps. But players should also have the ability try to Schrodinger things proactively, in order for this technique to fully work. So there are two scenarios:

(1) DM-initiated.
"There is a Schrodinger river." [I.e. I don't care about the details, do something fun if you want to.]
"I heard that trolls live in rivers like this. See that footprint there? It's probably a troll footprint. In fact, that's probably a troll hiding behind that hollow log there, listening to every word we say... [roll, roll]"
"Rawrrrr! Me eat you!"

I can totally imagine my players doing that.

(2) Player-initiated.
"You need to kill Strahd. Go to his castle and kill him, ideally in broad daylight."
"My grandmother told me once that vampires aren't harmed by sunlight. Instead, it turns them invisible, and that's why you never see them in the daytime. I'd feel safer going at night. Schrodinger please?"
"Sure. Write that down and we'll resolve it later."

Both of these sound like fun to me.

Obviously there are other scenarios where the DM just says, "No, I already have my vampire stats fixed" or "You check behind the log and there aren't any trolls here." The DM is still in charge of the world; but I like the idea of having specific, Schrodinger content that the DM isn't particularly invested in one way or the other, because honestly a lot of my content is like that. Only the important bits are usually fully sketched in.

[mgshamster]

That's why I hate the term player agency. It often has this deeply ingrained implication that players are special snowflakes, and what they desire to happen should happen.

Players should be welcome to try and change the world. They shouldn't not have the option to take actions in-game. But choices should have consequences, and the resulting consequences don't have to be in line with the consequences the player envisioned when they took the action. Sometimes trying to remove the Duke from power should be extremely likely to end up with the PCs imprisoned or dead. Because the world shouldn't automatically bend to the PCs desires.

That's an excellent point, and I fully agree.

It's the inverse of what I was saying while still keeping true to player agency, where the player's actions and choices have a meaningful impact.

A meaningful impact does not mean that the impact was positive for the PC.

[Tanarii]

A meaningful impact does not mean that the impact was positive for the PC.Ah okay. Well in that case, excuse my over-reaction to your post. :smallredface:

[mgshamster]

Ah okay. Well in that case, excuse my over-reaction to your post. :smallredface:

You know, I didn't see it as an over reaction at all. A reaction with some concern, yes, but not an over reaction. So all is forgiven. :)

[Ruslan]

If you're at a river you want to ford, there isn't really a choice.Except for the choice not to ford it and, for example, go look for a bridge. Rest of your argument collapses from here.


Agency isn't saying "I don't trust this Duke," it's being able to investigate him and find out meaningful information.Again, nowhere did I imply inability to investigate him. You investigate him, ask questions, he gives answers, then you decide to trust or not to trust.

Honestly, looks like you're trying too hard.


... and can not try to obtain additional information from the DM by having the character observe the thing of interest more attentively.Out of curiosity, which part of my post convinced you he can't "try to obtain additional information from the DM by having the character observe the thing of interest more attentively"?

Pretty sure I didn't post anything like "by the way, part of my proposal is no obtaining additional information from the DM by having the character observe the thing of interest more attentively". If I didn't know better, I'd say you just made it up.

[BrianDavion]

Seems to me this entire idea is convinced on the off theory that players have no agency based off skill checks, which is bogus. the example given in the OP? is an exacmple of METAGAMING.


let's go with another example...

the river is in fact dangerous to cross, the ranger examines it and tries to detirmine if it's safe.. he rolls.... A ONE.
"Alright guys! it's safe to cross here!"
the players reaction in this case depends on if they're good RPers, or metagamers. a good RPer will say "we trust the ranger, we cross"
A metagamer will find an excuse not to cross anyway.

the dice don't make your decisions for you. they just give your character access to additional information. there's still a chance that information could be in error

[smcmike]

Out of curiosity, which part of my post convinced you he can't "try to obtain additional information from the DM by having the character observe the thing of interest more attentively"?

Pretty sure I didn't post anything like "by the way, part of my proposal is no obtaining additional information from the DM by having the character observe the thing of interest more attentively". If I didn't know better, I'd say you just made it up.

Well, you removed the game mechanic by which a player would normally do this, so it's not coming out of the blue.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Well, you removed the game mechanic by which a player would normally do this, so it's not coming out of the blue.
Specifically, your examples combined the knowledge-gathering roll (Survival for "can we cross this river," Insight for "can we trust this guy") with the result of acting on that information ("yes, you cross successfully," or "nope, he stabs you.") And you imply that the result doesn't exist until you roll the dice, meaning that the DM can't give you hints or answer questions, because they themselves don't know the answer yet.

[Ruslan]

And you imply that the result doesn't exist until you roll the dice, meaning that the DM can't give you hints or answer questions, because they themselves don't know the answer yet.No logical connection here.

Schrodinger plot or not, talking still works the same. The information is Schrodinger information, appearing in the DM's head when the player asks a question. If the player never asks 'is the current fast', we will never know. If he does, the DM will give him whichever answer seems to be appropriate. If he believes it's appropriate for the current here to be fast, it will be. If not, it won't be.

Thinking about the question, giving an answer. Works pretty well.

[smcmike]

No logical connection here.

Schrodinger plot or not, talking still works the same. The information is Schrodinger information, appearing in the DM's head when the player asks a question. If the player never asks 'is the current fast', we will never know. If he does, the DM will give him whichever answer seems to be appropriate. If he believes it's appropriate for the current here to be fast, it will be. If not, it won't be.

Thinking about the question, giving an answer. Works pretty well.

The snark is strong, but you aren't really addressing the issues raised.

So the DM has no idea what the river is like. The player asks "what does the river look like." The DM decides, and announces that the river looks nice.

Where is the Schrodinger in this, exactly? This is just on-the-fly decision-making.

[Ruslan]

There are no issues to address. Only people who assume that because I didn't specify "people can ask questions and get answers", that means they obviously can't ask questions and get answers. Okay, now that I think of it, it is actually an issue, but not with my proposal, but with the assumptions those people make. Hopefully we won't have such misassumptions anymore, but if there are, I can readily address them.

[Millstone85]

Okay, now that I think of it, it is actually an issue, but not with my proposal, but with the assumptions those people make. Hopefully we won't have such misassumptions anymore, but if there are, I can readily address them.The issue is with your premise, that of a "Schrodinger plot" where "the DM hasn't actually decided if the river is safe yet", and how you are not sticking to it. First, the DM of your example has set a DC for crossing the river, meaning the DM has in fact already decided how safe the river is, at least as a game element. And now you are saying that the DM's description of the river does include things like the strenght of the current or signs of aquatic monsters, and that the players can ask for more such details, further confirming that the DM has already decided how safe the river is, also as a story element. So, what is this "Schrodinger plot" thread about when there is nothing Schrodinger-like with your method of DMing?

What I got is that you dislike observation checks and would rather reward attentive players and players who ask pertinent questions without having it mudded by the dice. And since you also don't want to waste skills like Survival or Insight, you would reallocate their use: a Survival check for the actual attempt at crossing the river, an Insight check to influence an NPC's actions, even if it steps on the territory of other skills.

[Socratov]

While Shrödinger's plot might look like a good idea, for an idea where decision making is based on information gathering (like the knowledges, insight, perception, investigation and survival) it's actually pretty bad. I eman, player agency is great and all, but you don't want to change the world according to what the players roll.

In the case of the ranger crossing the river:


DM: [description of river]
Ranger: I'd like to check wether or not we can safely cross the river
DM: Roll survival (sets DC to check the river for a safe crossing considering the party, if available)
Ranger: result is 17
DM: Well, the crossing is safe, though you see a couple of wet and slippery stones to be avoided by the heavier encumbered people.
Party: we'd like to cross and we trust our savvy ranger
DM: roll acrobatics to cross the stream and slippery stones
etc.

In this case, if the ranger has not rolled high enough on his survival check he might have missed the slippery stones. Maybe the water is foul and will poison people (con save) (depending on what you made the obstacle like) and that would set he DC for crossing higher and maybe change its type dpeending on the situation. Mabye the ranger misjudges the river to be more dangerous then it is and depending on the information you hand yout the player might decide it's not worth the trouble to cross here and will try further down the path or find a tree to walk over. In this case the stats do matter (they give you the information you ask for if you roll well enough) as higher stats create a better set of information to base decisions on. The actual crossing depends on stats as well. As for actual railroading, there is none. The DM does not make the players move or cross, he merely facilitates the information when asked questions, what's better, the world stays interanally consistent.

[HammeredWharf]

I can see why someone would think this is a good idea: it's collaborative storytelling, which RPGs are all about, right? Sure. There are, however, much better and clearer ways of letting the players influence the world, such as the good old "write n facts about the world". A river being deadly or not based on your knowledge roll just makes the world weirdly inconsistent.

It could work in a Limbo adventure, though. You'd *know* that river is not dangerous, and then it wouldn't be.

[JellyPooga]

It could work in a Limbo adventure, though. You'd *know* that river is not dangerous, and then it wouldn't be.

Or more accurately, you'd *know* the river is not dangerous, and the it would be a volcano.

[Ruslan]

And once again, I try to talk about an electric car and get a detailed manual for putting gasoline in a tank.

I eman, player agency is great and all, but you don't want to change the world according to what the players roll.Actually I kinda do. That's what was being argued about the last 50 posts.

[Ruslan]

A river being deadly or not based on your knowledge roll just makes the world weirdly inconsistent.I wonder why it's be inconsistent. Before plunging into the river, the Ranger actually has no idea whether his knowledge about the river is accurate or not. It might be accurate, and it might be not. There is nothing to be consistent with, because the river is an unknown to the Ranger. Well, he can guesstimate ("my Survival is +6, and the DM described the river in benevolent terms, so I'm likely right"), but he will never know until he's actually doing it.

If he plunges in and the river turns out to be more dangerous that he thought, there's no inconsistency (he was just wrong, he missed some non-obvious danger). If he plunges in and the river turns out to be safe, there's also no inconsistency.

Now, once he tried crossing the river and it turned out to be safe (or not), it will remain this way the next time the PCs come around. It's not a Schrodinger river anymore. This is perfectly consistent.



Or more accurately, you'd *know* the river is not dangerous, and the it would be a volcano.Making random stuff up on the Internet. How's that working for you?

[smcmike]

I wonder why it's be inconsistent. Before plunging into the river, the Ranger actually has no idea whether his knowledge about the river is accurate or not. It might be accurate, and it might be not. There is nothing to be consistent with, because the river is an unknown to the Ranger. Well, he can guesstimate ("my Survival is +6, and the DM described the river in benevolent terms, so I'm likely right"), but he will never know until he's actually doing it.

"My swim is +6, and the DM described the river in benevolent terms, so I can probably get across it safely."

This is all you are doing! This is not increased agency.


Can you give some more examples, though? Something that shows this system doing something fun, with an explanation of why you think it's fun? Because I actually do agree with MaxWilson that there are fun ways to play with this idea. Crossing a river just doesn't seem like one.

One other question: are you suggesting mixing this in with checks done normally, or running the system this way exclusively?

[Ruslan]

Can you give some more examples, though? Something that shows this system doing something fun, with an explanation of why you think it's fun? Here's one that actually happened.

The party were scouts and outriders for an infantry regiment. The regimental HQ was decimated by a surprise attack from the BBEG while they were away. Upon scrambling to return to help, the party find an wounded soldier telling them "the BBEG went that-a way". At this point, I had the soldier as Schrodinger BBEG minion in disguise. Meaning, he could have been a BBEG minion, but could also be on the level. The party smell a rat. One of them asks, "what's the name of your commanding officer?"

Now, that's not a question that a BBEG minion would be able to answer. So, at this point, Schrodinger was done. A decision had to be made - the guy is either on the level or not. I gave it a 50/50 chance of each and rolled a die. The result was he's on the level. The soldier confidently answers "Captain Thorksen!" and the PCs trust him.

If the die landed on "BBEG minion", the fake soldier would have been unable to give a clear answer, of course.

And if the PCs didn't ask this probing question, the Schrodinger state of the soldier would have persisted until it was time to resolve it.


One other question: are you suggesting mixing this in with checks done normally, or running the system this way exclusively?Exclusively is probably too much. It will have a lot of ingame use though. Not episodal, but significant.

[Xetheral]

I gave it a 50/50 chance of each and rolled a die.

A few questions:

How did you select 50/50? Was it based on the choices of the players? From the players' perspective, how is giving a 50/50 chance on-the-fly any different from having rolled randomly in advance (with the same odds)? Can you go into more depth as to how you feel your method enhanced player agency in this particular situation?

Edit: Would the odds that the soldier was a BBEG have been different if a different character was making the check?

[mgshamster]

Here's one that actually happened.

The party were scouts and outriders for an infantry regiment. The regimental HQ was decimated by a surprise attack from the BBEG while they were away. Upon scrambling to return to help, the party find an wounded soldier telling them "the BBEG went that-a way". At this point, I had the soldier as Schrodinger BBEG minion in disguise. Meaning, he could have been a BBEG minion, but could also be on the level. The party smell a rat. One of them asks, "what's the name of your commanding officer?"

Now, that's not a question that a BBEG minion would be able to answer. So, at this point, Schrodinger was done. A decision had to be made - the guy is either on the level or not. I gave it a 50/50 chance of each and rolled a die. The result was he's on the level. The soldier confidently answers "Captain Thorksen!" and the PCs trust him.

If the die landed on "BBEG minion", the fake soldier would have been unable to give a clear answer, of course.

And if the PCs didn't ask this probing question, the Schrodinger state of the soldier would have persisted until it was time to resolve it.

A few clarification questions:

1) From what I understand, this is what you're trying to set up: A situation occurs where the background of the situation can literally come from two or more directions, depending on what the players ask or how the dice roll. Is this correct?

2) This story/example seems to ignore the dice situation you set up in the first post. Are you setting up a situation where either the dice or the the questions by the player control the background of an event? Or is it just the dice or just questions asked by the player?

3) How do these situations actually represent player agency? These examples seem to be altering the background of an event based on what a player asks or what a player rolls on a d20, rather than the outcome of an event based on what the Player Characters do in game.

If I understand you correctly, then I like what you've come up with. I shared the idea with my gaming group, and they like it too. However, I think "player agency" is either the wrong term or we have completey different understandings of what it means. These examples all seem to change what happened in the past based on ether randomness or player inquiry, rather than changing what is happening now or in the future based on player decision and action.

[awa]

not planning ahead is not player agency its just not planning ahead. Your concept seems really inconsistent as well your last example does not seem to mesh with anything you've said previously so either your not very good at describing your idea or you have changed it without telling anyone.

The previous example would have been I think he's a bad guy and then make a check to turn him into the villain.

[smcmike]

Ok. I don't really have any problem with the soldier scenario, but it doesn't quite fit with the first two examples.

I guess my position is that creating the world in response to player inquiries is an essential part of the game, and done well can lead down all sorts of interesting paths, but that I don't like the way it was specifically tied to the knowledge-type checks presented above.

One way I could see it being tied into a knowledge check with good player buy-in: the player makes a check, the DM says good job, you succeed. Tell us more about it.

[pwykersotz]

As it has been touched on, this is more narrative control than it is agency.

I kind of like it, kind of don't. Too much Schrodinger's plot relies heavily on improv on both the GM and Player sides. It's something I discovered when trying Dungeon World some months back with my table, not everyone is cut out for this, and it can get VERY tiring.

I won't make judgements about your table, but my table would burn out quickly and default to the lowest common denominator. And I'm pretty structured by nature, so quick adaptation and fleshing out of brand new things is tough for me.

The thing is, I use this already. Occasionally I just let the dice fall where they may.

Player: "I scour the room for secret doors!" (rolls a 19 + 6 for a modifier)
Me: "Hey, look at that, you found one! It has a x gold pieces in it and a very old portrait of a young woman."

Alternately, the player rolls an 8 and I say that either none exists, or that there is one but it is filled with naught but cobwebs.

So yeah, I use it, but not generally relating to the main plot. My players kind of like a few rails in their adventure though.

[Z3ro]

So, at this point, Schrodinger was done. A decision had to be made - the guy is either on the level or not. I gave it a 50/50 chance of each and rolled a die. The result was he's on the level. The soldier confidently answers "Captain Thorksen!" and the PCs trust him.

If the die landed on "BBEG minion", the fake soldier would have been unable to give a clear answer, of course.


I'm not understanding here what is different about this situation than just any other normal DMing. I mean, you used a method to determine if the NPC was a traitor. What would have been different if you had flipped the coin before the game started, rather than at the moment the question occurred?



And if the PCs didn't ask this probing question, the Schrodinger state of the soldier would have persisted until it was time to resolve it.

But again, what difference does it make in actual play? If the players didn't ask any questions you don't flip the coin, so maybe later the NPC is a traitor. But let's say you flipped the coin before the session started, and it landed on "not traitor". If the PCs interact with him, same result. But if they don't, and later you decide that the story would move better if he was a traitor, you can just flip it. The PCs won't know. I'm not seeing a difference between what you're doing and what most DMs do, except maybe a little in the prep.

[krugaan]

As it has been touched on, this is more narrative control than it is agency.

I kind of like it, kind of don't. Too much Schrodinger's plot relies heavily on improv on both the GM and Player sides. It's something I discovered when trying Dungeon World some months back with my table, not everyone is cut out for this, and it can get VERY tiring.


so much this. While it may be good for a truly sandbox-y campaign, epic stories written by 4-10 people on the fly will tend to not be very good.



My players kind of like a few rails in their adventure though.

Also this. The most awkward DnD moment:

DM: "Ok, so what do you guys do now?"
Players: "....................."

[awa]

Also this. The most awkward DnD moment:

DM: "Ok, so what do you guys do now?"
Players: "....................."

This particularly in settings where one step in the wrong direction will have you squashed by overpowered npcs and or monsters. Gives me flash backs of bad vampire the masquerade games.

[Ruslan]

A few questions:

How did you select 50/50? Was it based on the choices of the players? From the players' perspective, how is giving a 50/50 chance on-the-fly any different from having rolled randomly in advance (with the same odds)? Can you go into more depth as to how you feel your method enhanced player agency in this particular situation?

Edit: Would the odds that the soldier was a BBEG have been different if a different character was making the check?
1. I felt like it
2. It's not. He's either a bad or a good guy, they're trying to find out.
3. Without Schrodinger:
Player: I make an Insight check.
DM: <roll behind the screen> He seems honest (or alternatively "he seems dishonest")
Player: <follows whatever the dice told him to do>
If you want to call rolling a die and acting on it "agency", I guess you can do so. Good for you. I just call it playing follow-the-dice.
4. This question makes no sense. There was no character making the check. The player asked the question that forced me to resolve the Schrodinger state. I made the check.


A few clarification questions:

1) From what I understand, this is what you're trying to set up: A situation occurs where the background of the situation can literally come from two or more directions, depending on what the players ask or how the dice roll. Is this correct?

2) This story/example seems to ignore the dice situation you set up in the first post. Are you setting up a situation where either the dice or the the questions by the player control the background of an event? Or is it just the dice or just questions asked by the player?

3) How do these situations actually represent player agency? These examples seem to be altering the background of an event based on what a player asks or what a player rolls on a d20, rather than the outcome of an event based on what the Player Characters do in game.

If I understand you correctly, then I like what you've come up with. I shared the idea with my gaming group, and they like it too. However, I think "player agency" is either the wrong term or we have completey different understandings of what it means. These examples all seem to change what happened in the past based on ether randomness or player inquiry, rather than changing what is happening now or in the future based on player decision and action.
1. Yes.
2. It doesn't ignore it, it supplements it. The players didn't have to ask the soldier a probing question. If they didn't ask that question, they'd have nothing to fall back on except their characters' Insight skill. The soldier would have remained in a Schrodinger state until a narratively convenient moment to turn on the party, at which point I would roll Insight. Failed Insight check: they were wrong to trust him, he was a bad guy all along.
3. Once again, I don't think succeeding on an insight check and then following up on a result is much player agency. Like in a game of backgammon, you rolled the dice, you got the result you wanted, now all is left is to move the little piece from here to there.

However, I think "player agency" is either the wrong term or we have completey different understandings of what it meansPossibly. I can live with that.




Ok. I don't really have any problem with the soldier scenario, but it doesn't quite fit with the first two examples. As mentioned above, it supplement the first two examples.

It's a response to the "but if playing your way, we can't ask the DM probing questions!" crowd.


But again, what difference does it make in actual play? If the players didn't ask any questions you don't flip the coin, so maybe later the NPC is a traitor. But let's say you flipped the coin before the session started, and it landed on "not traitor". If the PCs interact with him, same result. But if they don't, and later you decide that the story would move better if he was a traitor, you can just flip it. The PCs won't know. I'm not seeing a difference between what you're doing and what most DMs do, except maybe a little in the prep.That's also what I'm trying to avoid. See, "skills matter". PCs interact with the guy, they get an Insight check. As a DM, I don't get to flip the guy behind their back because I want to. That's unfair.

And I also don't want a good Insight check to just feed them with info - "he's good", "he's bad". So the Insight check goes retroactively. Good check = "whatever you thought about him, you were right."

[MaxWilson]

Also this. The most awkward DnD moment:

DM: "Ok, so what do you guys do now?"
Players: "....................."

That's the DM's cue to step in and remind the players of what their options are. It's not hard--just think of things you would consider doing in their shoes, and rattle off the first three or four options that come to mind.

DM: Ok, so you're standing there in the crypt over the body of a dead ghoul. There's a door to the south where you came in, and two tunnels, one slightly larger than the other, leading north. What do you do now?
Players: ...
DM: You could cut your losses and leave the crypt, or you could send Loki ahead alone to scout some more, or you could stick together and enter one of the tunnels, or you can search the ghoul's pockets. Also remember that the Banshee is still lurking around here somewhere--you could wait for her to show up, or until whatever made those footprints comes back.

The players may begin arguing with each other at this point but they're probably not just going to stare at each other in awkward silence now.

[Ruslan]

As it has been touched on, this is more narrative control than it is agency.If it will help move the discussion along, I can switch all claims of 'agency' into 'narrative control'.


I kind of like it, kind of don't. Too much Schrodinger's plot relies heavily on improv on both the GM and Player sides. It's something I discovered when trying Dungeon World some months back with my table, not everyone is cut out for this, and it can get VERY tiring.That's true, but I kinda was able to handle it so far with only minimal bouts of insanity. I'm kidding, kidding, no insanity.


The thing is, I use this already. Occasionally I just let the dice fall where they may.

Player: "I scour the room for secret doors!" (rolls a 19 + 6 for a modifier)
Me: "Hey, look at that, you found one! It has a x gold pieces in it and a very old portrait of a young woman."

Alternately, the player rolls an 8 and I say that either none exists, or that there is one but it is filled with naught but cobwebs.That's very good. I approve! :thumbsup:

[krugaan]

If it will help move the discussion along, I can switch all claims of 'agency' into 'narrative control'.

That's true, but I kinda was able to handle it so far with only minimal bouts of insanity. I'm kidding, kidding, no insanity.

That's very good. I approve! :thumbsup:

I see what you're getting at, and used reasonably, I don't see why it wouldn't be fine.

If your players are just as good as you at coming up with stories, then go for it. The issue is with internal consistency, I guess... there just won't be very much of it.

[Ruslan]

Once again, what's the problem with consistency?

The soldier is either a traitor or not. The PC has no idea. To him, the traitor/not-traitor state of the soldier is "unknown". Until he resolves that state, either by casting a Divination spell (which resolves the Schrodinger state of the soldier immediately), asks a few probing questions (which may or may not resolve the state, depending on the exact questioning), or saying "heck, I trust the guy, let's follow him", there is nothing to be consistent with.

Once the Schrodinger state is resolved and it's known whether the soldier is treacherous or not, it remains this way. It's not going to suddenly change state for no reason.

Of course, the DM should only set Schrodinger situations where every possible resolution makes sense within the game world. In this case, the soldier can be a BBEG traitor, it can be a regular soldier, but it can't be the God Pelor in disguise.

Schrodinger plot has more than one possible outcome, but all possible outcomes make sense, at least within a fantastic world, and only one outcome actually resolves. So I see no loss of consistency.

[smcmike]

I guess I misunderstood the purpose of this idea. I originally thought it was a sort of radical rewriting of the way the world works, an attempt at player-led storytelling.

It seems what it actually is is a way to give info skills some use in a game where they have otherwise been removed.

The soldier example clarifies this somewhat. He is in a Schrodinger state because you don't want the players to be able to use Insight to directly determine his loyalty. Once they've passed your narrative test, you determine his loyalty and provide the solution. If they don't pass your narrative test, the Schrodinger is the fallback position. I don't really think it is necessary to leave his loyalty undetermined, though.


Let's assume we have a player that likes to roll dice to solve problems. Let's say he maxes wisdom and gets expertise in Wisdom. How do you deal with this character, who will almost always beat a 20 DC insight check? If you handle the checks normally, this skill would give the player huge powers to dig through your NPCs secrets. Annoying, and powerful, but I think ultimately manageable. In a Schrodinger check, though, he can basically write the NPCs around him, right?

He runs into that soldier: "this guy is a traitor. I'm sure of it. Let's kill him."

Kills him. Sorts through his pockets. Rolls insight. "See, look, the BBEG's insignia!"

[krugaan]

Once again, what's the problem with consistency?

The soldier is either a traitor or not. The PC has no idea. To him, the traitor/not-traitor state of the soldier is "unknown". Until he resolves that state, either by casting a Divination spell (which resolves the Schrodinger state of the soldier immediately), asks a few probing questions (which may or may not resolve the state, depending on the exact questioning), or saying "heck, I trust the guy, let's follow him", there is nothing to be consistent with.

Once the Schrodinger state is resolved and it's known whether the soldier is treacherous or not, it remains this way. It's not going to suddenly change state for no reason.

Of course, the DM should only set Schrodinger situations where every possible resolution makes sense within the game world. In this case, the soldier can be a BBEG traitor, it can be a regular soldier, but it can't be the God Pelor in disguise.

Schrodinger plot has more than one possible outcome, but all possible outcomes make sense, at least within a fantastic world, and only one outcome actually resolves. So I see no loss of consistency.

The problem is the difficulty it takes to make an internally consistent story like that. While it doesn't *require* that you map out every possibility, remembering all the resolutions and finding a narrative where they make sense (and finding a narrative that leaves the most possibilities open) seems like it would be very difficult.

For unimportant things, sure, it won't matter, and might be more fun. I get the feeling, though, that after awhile, the stories might start being the same anyway, human nature being what it is, and having too much player agency might be just as limiting, in a strange way, as having too little.

edit: tldr, having your narrative controlled by players AND dice seems tricky and difficult

[Z3ro]

3. Without Schrodinger:
Player: I make an Insight check.
DM: <roll behind the screen> He seems honest (or alternatively "he seems dishonest")
Player: <follows whatever the dice told him to do>
If you want to call rolling a die and acting on it "agency", I guess you can do so. Good for you. I just call it playing follow-the-dice.

3. Once again, I don't think succeeding on an insight check and then following up on a result is much player agency.

It's a response to the "but if playing your way, we can't ask the DM probing questions!" crowd.
That's also what I'm trying to avoid. See, "skills matter". PCs interact with the guy, they get an Insight check. As a DM, I don't get to flip the guy behind their back because I want to. That's unfair.

And I also don't want a good Insight check to just feed them with info - "he's good", "he's bad". So the Insight check goes retroactively. Good check = "whatever you thought about him, you were right."

I think I'm seeing the disconnect, so please let me know if I am understanding correctly. You don't want your players to simply walk up to the soldier and say "I roll insight to see if he's a traitor", then let the dice inform them of their thoughts. You want them to ask questions and then determine the answers. Is that right?

If this is correct, this is how I've always played. You don't say "I roll diplomacy", you have to actually say what your character says. I hardly think it's anything new though.


That's also what I'm trying to avoid. See, "skills matter". PCs interact with the guy, they get an Insight check. As a DM, I don't get to flip the guy behind their back because I want to. That's unfair.

That's only if they interact with him. If they didn't, he could flip later, whether you determined his traitor status or not. It's not unfair, you're the DM. Plus, one could always start as a non-traitor and later become a traitor. Figuring out how that happened is a great plot in its own right.

[mgshamster]

One thing I don't understand is the premise behind this idea.

How is player agency (or narrative control) opposite of or in conflict with statistics on a character sheet?

[HammeredWharf]

Once again, what's the problem with consistency?

The world is essentially half-finished and in a constant state of flux based on what the PCs decide. In this case, the flux also applies to things it normally wouldn't apply to, like how dangerous a river is.

Anyway, I think my personal dislike of this idea comes from me not finding anything wrong with the current system. You claim it forces the players to follow the dice. I'd say it doesn't force them to do anything. Let's go through the spy scenario you presented: a suspicious soldier is telling the PCs where the BBEG is. Let's say we're using the normal rules and the DM decided the NPC is a traitor.

Scenario 1: PCs roll Insight and fail. Now they could believe the NPC... or not. Maybe he's just a good liar. They could still be suspicious and ask him who his commander is, or they could decide not to follow the BBEG and report to HQ instead, or they could kill the guy and take his stuff, etc.

Scenario 2: PCs roll Insight and succeed. Now they could interrogate the traitor, or they could kill him, or they could try to turn him into a double agent, or they could imprison him, or they could try to mind control him, etc.

Skill checks rarely tell you the absolute truth. Unless you rolled something like a 30, you don't know if that river is safe or if that guy is a liar. Even if you're absolutely sure you got the info right, you can still decide what you're going to do with it. In other words, this


There are two opposing powers in RPGs: "Player agency" vs "Stats matter".

is a false dichotomy even under normal rules. Your solution doesn't solve anything, because there's nothing to solve.

[MaxWilson]

Anyway, I think my personal dislike of this idea comes from me not finding anything wrong with the current system. You claim it forces the players to follow the dice. I'd say it doesn't force them to do anything. Let's go through the spy scenario you presented: a suspicious soldier is telling the PCs where the BBEG is. Let's say we're using the normal rules and the DM decided the NPC is a traitor.

Scenario 1: PCs roll Insight and fail. Now they could believe the NPC... or not. Maybe he's just a good liar. They could still be suspicious and ask him who his commander is, or they could decide not to follow the BBEG and report to HQ instead, or they could kill the guy and take his stuff, etc.

Scenario 2: PCs roll Insight and succeed. Now they could interrogate the traitor, or they could kill him, or they could try to turn him into a double agent, or they could imprison him, or they could try to mind control him, etc.

Skill checks rarely tell you the absolute truth. Unless you rolled something like a 30, you don't know if that river is safe or if that guy is a liar. Even if you're absolutely sure you got the info right, you can still decide what you're going to do with it. In other words, this

is a false dichotomy even under normal rules. Your solution doesn't solve anything, because there's nothing to solve.

The value add of systems like this is improved flow, not changed outcomes. Compare:

(1) Deterministic

Bob: Does the river look safe?
DM: Roll Survival, DC 15.
Bob: 16
DM: Yes, it looks safe.
Bob: Hey guys, this river looks fine!
Fred: Okay, I wade right on in.

(2) Schrodinger:

Bob: Hey guys, this river looks fine! [to DM] Schrodinger?
DM: Sure, DC 10.
Fred: Okay, I wade right on in.

Scenario #2 has improved flow (less talking) and doesn't require Fred's play to close his eyes while Bob is rolling his dice.

[Rysto]

How is player agency (or narrative control) opposite of or in conflict with statistics on a character sheet?

More to the point, is player agency really what we want? From my perspective, it seems that what we really want is PC agency. Aren't we really looking for the in-character decisions of the PCs to have a meaningful impact on the world, not the out-of-character decisions of the players? Usually those two are aligned, but in this case, that is not so. This Schrodinger system does not give additional agency to the PCs. A PC cannot decide that the river is safe or not and bend the reality of the world to their will. It's an out-of-character decision by the player that does that.

[Baptor]

If I were going to attempt this technique, I'd make it a bit more explicit. As DM, I'd signal to players that "this is a Schrodinger river, feel free to play around with it" by some nonverbal or verbal cue, similar to how I "click!" for traps. But players should also have the ability try to Schrodinger things proactively, in order for this technique to fully work. So there are two scenarios:

(1) DM-initiated.
"There is a Schrodinger river." [I.e. I don't care about the details, do something fun if you want to.]
"I heard that trolls live in rivers like this. See that footprint there? It's probably a troll footprint. In fact, that's probably a troll hiding behind that hollow log there, listening to every word we say... [roll, roll]"
"Rawrrrr! Me eat you!"

I can totally imagine my players doing that.

(2) Player-initiated.
"You need to kill Strahd. Go to his castle and kill him, ideally in broad daylight."
"My grandmother told me once that vampires aren't harmed by sunlight. Instead, it turns them invisible, and that's why you never see them in the daytime. I'd feel safer going at night. Schrodinger please?"
"Sure. Write that down and we'll resolve it later."

Both of these sound like fun to me.

Obviously there are other scenarios where the DM just says, "No, I already have my vampire stats fixed" or "You check behind the log and there aren't any trolls here." The DM is still in charge of the world; but I like the idea of having specific, Schrodinger content that the DM isn't particularly invested in one way or the other, because honestly a lot of my content is like that. Only the important bits are usually fully sketched in.

This can be fun. My players fought a vampire recently and both were near death. The players offered a truce and the vampire agreed to a one week truce. One of the players said, "This is stupid, he's evil, he can just break the truce." The other player said, "No, he's a magical creature and this is a vow. If he breaks the vow, he will suffer terrible magical consequences." he turns to me, "Right?"

It sounded like an awesome rule. "Right." I said with a smile.

[pwykersotz]

This can be fun. My players fought a vampire recently and both were near death. The players offered a truce and the vampire agreed to a one week truce. One of the players said, "This is stupid, he's evil, he can just break the truce." The other player said, "No, he's a magical creature and this is a vow. If he breaks the vow, he will suffer terrible magical consequences." he turns to me, "Right?"

It sounded like an awesome rule. "Right." I said with a smile.

Haha, sounds like the old axiom:

You design something simple. The players deduce something complex. And gosh darn-it if you don't like their idea better.

[MaxWilson]

More to the point, is player agency really what we want? From my perspective, it seems that what we really want is PC agency. Aren't we really looking for the in-character decisions of the PCs to have a meaningful impact on the world, not the out-of-character decisions of the players? Usually those two are aligned, but in this case, that is not so. This Schrodinger system does not give additional agency to the PCs. A PC cannot decide that the river is safe or not and bend the reality of the world to their will. It's an out-of-character decision by the player that does that.

No, this is explicitly player agency because the PC's decisions are identical in both cases: "River looks safe, I think I'll cross it." The Schrodinger effect only affects things at the metagame level by making player/DM interactions smoother/less reactive. It doesn't affect PC/world interactions at all.

[Ruslan]

Let's assume we have a player that likes to roll dice to solve problems. Let's say he maxes wisdom and gets expertise in Wisdom. How do you deal with this character, who will almost always beat a 20 DC insight check? If you handle the checks normally, this skill would give the player huge powers to dig through your NPCs secrets. Annoying, and powerful, but I think ultimately manageable. In a Schrodinger check, though, he can basically write the NPCs around him, right?

He runs into that soldier: "this guy is a traitor. I'm sure of it. Let's kill him."

Kills him. Sorts through his pockets. Rolls insight. "See, look, the BBEG's insignia!"
Ok, so first of all, any game system is not meant to be played with people who deliberately aim to break this game system.
I think you understand your example is of a player who deliberately aims to play against the spirit of the idea. Since I don't play with players who deliberately want to break the game, I don't need to consider it.

Having said that, let's try to consider it. It is improbable, even impossible, for everyone to suddenly be a BBEG agent. If your player tries this, he will run into basically impossible check DCs. Because he's trying to achieve something extremely unlikely.

Player: this random guy I just saw is a BBEG agent. <kill> DC 20 check to be right, yes?
DM: Who said 20? You barely saw the person, it would be extremely unlikely you'd be able to unmask him with such accuracy after such a short time. DC 40.
Player: I can't make DC 40!
DM: Awww. Looks like your hunch was wrong. In his pockets, you find 2d4 cp. City watch company is approaching.

[smcmike]

Ok, so first of all, any game system is not meant to be played with people who deliberately aim to break this game system.
I think you understand your example is of a player who deliberately aims to play against the spirit of the idea. Since I don't play with players who deliberately want to break the game, I don't need to consider it.

Having said that, let's try to consider it. It is improbable, even impossible, for everyone to suddenly be a BBEG agent. If your player tries this, he will run into basically impossible check DCs. Because he's trying to achieve something extremely unlikely.

Player: this random guy I just saw is a BBEG agent. <kill> DC 20 check to be right, yes?
DM: Who said 20? You barely saw the person, it would be extremely unlikely you'd be able to unmask him with such accuracy after such a short time. DC 40.
Player: I can't make DC 40!
DM: Awww. Looks like your hunch was wrong. In his pockets, you find 2d4 cp. City watch company is approaching.

So using expertise on insight is not allowed? What other high skill checks are banned?

Also, adding in extremely high skill checks because the player didn't play your narrative mini-game is an interesting development. Let's bring it back to the ranger.

DM: you come to a river.
Ranger: my survival check is massive. This river is safe. Let's cross.
DM: ok, survival check. DC 40.
Player: wait, what?
DM: you didn't spend any time looking at the river! You just said it was safe!
Player: I thought I was suppose to take the lead and use my skills to describe things!

[MaxWilson]

Also, adding in extremely high skill checks because the player didn't play your narrative mini-game is an interesting development.

You misunderstand. The high DC is being used to represent improbability.

Me, I'd just say "No, he's not." You Schrodinger elements only that you don't care about (as a DM) one way or the other; but if you have a strong opinion already, then you don't, and if I am sick and tired of enemy agents infiltrating the city then they won't be Schrodinger agents. Instead of using DC to represent improbability, I'd keep DC meaning exactly what it means today: difficulty of detection.

I don't like the idea of DC doing double duty as both improbability and difficulty simultaneously.

[Ruslan]

So using expertise on insight is not allowed? What other high skill checks are banned?
I don't know what's banned, but I would definitely prefer someone had Expertise on their Craft (A Post That Makes Sense) check.

[RickAllison]

I don't know what's banned, but I would definitely prefer someone had Expertise on their Craft (A Post That Makes Sense) check.

And so personal attacks in another thread begin?

[Socratov]

And so personal attacks in another thread begin?

It's about time, this thread seems to have to lived to page 3!

[smcmike]

Ok, so first of all, any game system is not meant to be played with people who deliberately aim to break this game system.
I think you understand your example is of a player who deliberately aims to play against the spirit of the idea. Since I don't play with players who deliberately want to break the game, I don't need to consider it.

Having said that, let's try to consider it. It is improbable, even impossible, for everyone to suddenly be a BBEG agent. If your player tries this, he will run into basically impossible check DCs. Because he's trying to achieve something extremely unlikely.


You misunderstand. The high DC is being used to represent improbability.

Me, I'd just say "No, he's not." You Schrodinger elements only that you don't care about (as a DM) one way or the other; but if you have a strong opinion already, then you don't, and if I am sick and tired of enemy agents infiltrating the city then they won't be Schrodinger agents. Instead of using DC to represent improbability, I'd keep DC meaning exactly what it means today: difficulty of detection.

I don't like the idea of DC doing double duty as both improbability and difficulty simultaneously.

Fair enough, though in this case we were discussing someone who apparently had a 50/50 shot of being an agent.

I guess it's probably safer (if more boring) for extremely-high-insight-guy to trust everyone he meets, if the probability is that the average person is not a BBEG agent. This should make the group essentially immune to random-stranger backstabbing. Of course, this doesn't lend itself to using this system for anything interesting.

[krugaan]

It's about time, this thread seems to have to lived to page 3!

I had a lol at this.

"you don't get it."

"no, YOU don't get it"

"no, YOU don't get it because [IQ implication]"

"no, YOU don't get it because [something about reading comprehension]"

etc, etc


I think the point we're trying to make is that Schrodingers plot is the illusion of choice, with little or no impact on the actual plot, like the ending of Mass Effect 3. Now, I liked Mass Effect 3, even the ending ... but when any decisions you make are either a) fed to you by the DM (by description) or b) determined by dice roll, it's not really agency. At least IMO.

edit: or option c) have no lasting effect on the plot... mostly.

[Ruslan]

I had a lol at this.

"you don't get it."

"no, YOU don't get it"

"no, YOU don't get it because [IQ implication]"

"no, YOU don't get it because [something about reading comprehension]"

etc, etc


I think the point we're trying to make is that Schrodingers plot is the illusion of choice, with little or no impact on the actual plot, like the ending of Mass Effect 3. Now, I liked Mass Effect 3, even the ending ... but when any decisions you make are either a) fed to you by the DM (by description) or b) determined by dice roll, it's not really agency. At least IMO.

edit: or option c) have no lasting effect on the plot... mostly.
you don't get it


but when any decisions you make are either a) fed to you by the DM (by description) or b) determined by dice roll, it's not really agency.
You mean something like:

"I roll 17 on Survival"
"You reach the conclusion the river is safe to cross"
<DM never said "the die roll decrees your character crosses the river" directly, but he might as well straight out had>

Or something like:

"I roll 20 on Sense Motive"
"The guy definitely seems to be hiding an ulterior motive"
<The DM never said "the die roll decrees your character treat this NPC as a BBEG agent", but he might as well had>

[MaxWilson]

Fair enough, though in this case we were discussing someone who apparently had a 50/50 shot of being an agent.

I guess it's probably safer (if more boring) for extremely-high-insight-guy to trust everyone he meets, if the probability is that the average person is not a BBEG agent. This should make the group essentially immune to random-stranger backstabbing. Of course, this doesn't lend itself to using this system for anything interesting.

Right. But of course you don't have to use Schrodinger elements to be safe and boring. I know I wouldn't. I like chaos.

[smcmike]

Right. But of course you don't have to use Schrodinger elements to be safe and boring. I know I wouldn't. I like chaos.

But my suggested uses of it to cause chaos have slapped down as either trolling or attempts to break the system, resulting in absurdly high DCs.

[krugaan]

you don't get it


Thanks for clearing that up, then..

I think I prefer Maxwilson's usage, where everything is clearly telegraphed. I wouldn't really call it "Schrodinger's plot" though ... more like a "Schrodinger event" which is fine when everyone is good at improvising as a team, they all agree, and it doesn't affect the actual plot.

[MaxWilson]

But my suggested uses of it to cause chaos have slapped down as either trolling or attempts to break the system, resulting in absurdly high DCs.

They haven't been slapped down by me, though. I'd let you uncover an enemy agent, once. Maybe more than once. If I roll with it, and everyone you question really does turn out to be an enemy agent, well then, abductive reasoning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning) comes into play--I will find a way to make it make coherent sense with the rest of the game world. Maybe that means that the mind flayers have infiltrated the city and 40% of the populace is already infected (90% of the police force). Maybe that means an enemy army turns out to be only six hours from launching a massive attack on the city.

Being forced to do that is one of the potential attractions of the technique, to me as a DM. But if I had something else in mind I can always just not offer you any more Schrodinger agents once you've reached your quota.

[RickAllison]

The "Schrodinger's Event" is something I actually use not for D&D (yet), but for Star Wars. That system is easier to work with it in because the dice are prone to more varied results (success, ultimate triumph, failure, ultimate despair, success with some complications, failure with good effects, etc.), which means there numerous possible results to interpret. In D&D, the way I would see this being captured is with multiple rolls so a PC could get a massive success thanks to one good roll, but have a negative effect because others failed badly.

[krugaan]

They haven't been slapped down by me, though. I'd let you uncover an enemy agent, once. Maybe more than once. If I roll with it, and everyone you question really does turn out to be an enemy agent, well then, abductive reasoning (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning) comes into play--I will find a way to make it make coherent sense with the rest of the game world. Maybe that means that the mind flayers have infiltrated the city and 40% of the populace is already infected (90% of the police force). Maybe that means an enemy army turns out to be only six hours from launching a massive attack on the city.

Being forced to do that is one of the potential attractions of the technique, to me as a DM. But if I had something else in mind I can always just not offer you any more Schrodinger agents once you've reached your quota.

In a strange way, I'm sure many serial TV shows actually do this. Writers probably routinely insert macguffins / mcguyvers into shows and then resolve them later as needed. Mysterious guy A is really your father, and helps you out of a bind! Introducing a character early gives time to build suspense and interest, then you can resolve it however you like that's most convenient / dramatic.

Insert too many, though, and you may get Lost, lol.

Difference, of course, being, that serial TV shows are obviously painstakingly scripted.

edit: I just used mcguyver to mean "random person with unknown plot significance" ... is there an actual term for this? like "Racer X" or something?

[pwykersotz]

edit: I just used mcguyver to mean "random person with unknown plot significance" ... is there an actual term for this? like "Racer X" or something?

I don't know if there's an official term, but I love the term Racer X to describe this. :smallbiggrin:

[krugaan]

I don't know if there's an official term, but I love the term Racer X to describe this. :smallbiggrin:

Hah, then let it be so!

Edit: although damn, it makes me feel old.

[Ruslan]

But my suggested uses of it to cause chaos have slapped down as either trolling or attempts to break the system, resulting in absurdly high DCs.
But they REALLY ARE attempts to break the system. In fact, your examples are all about "this system is bad, because it can be broken, see, for example, like this ... ". There's no point in coming up with attempts to deliberately break the system and then cry foul when they are slapped as attempts to break the system. Because they are.

[RickAllison]

But they REALLY ARE attempts to break the system. In fact, your examples are all about "this system is bad, because it can be broken, see, for example, like this ... ". There's no point in coming up with attempts to deliberately break the system and then cry foul when they are slapped as attempts to break the system. Because they are.

If a system can be broken that easily, it probably needs work. Have you ever tried programming? One of the key traits of a well-tested software is not whether it works under optimal circumstances, but if it works in the corner-cases and unexpected situations. Not all things can be tested for (for example, it would be forgiven if it breaks down with added or third-party content, as you didn't create the system to function with those. If it breaks down within the boundaries of the game, that is where trouble lies.

[krugaan]

If a system can be broken that easily, it probably needs work. Have you ever tried programming? One of the key traits of a well-tested software is not whether it works under optimal circumstances, but if it works in the corner-cases and unexpected situations. Not all things can be tested for (for example, it would be forgiven if it breaks down with added or third-party content, as you didn't create the system to function with those. If it breaks down within the boundaries of the game, that is where trouble lies.

To be fair, it's an interesting, clever idea ... which unfortunately requires a very skilled, imaginative, and cooperative group to pull off (IMO). The generic "cause - effect" model is just easier on everyone, as has been noted, and is not a wild departure from RAW.

[mgshamster]

Can we et back to the idea that this system allows for players to be in charge of their own choices? How does it do that?

The proposed idea was that typically, a player's choice is counter-prohibitive towards their PC's good/high abilities. I'm still confused how those two are opposed.

Even if they're not opposed, how does this system align the two? How does having a [player ask a question] and [that question leading to an alternate background path for an event] take into account player choice AND high stats?

What does it have to do with stats? Can't you just do it without consideration for the character sheet, as several of the examples have shown? What does it have to do with railroading? How does it allow for players to be in charge of their choices?

Can we elaborate on these? Expand our ideas to help with understanding?

[smcmike]

I'm not trying to break the idea so much as test it. I wouldn't bother trying to test it if I didn't think it was interesting. I wish Ruslan wasn't quite so defensive about it, but I guess I can see how it might feel like he was being ganged up on.

I agree with the premise that the knowledge skills can be a bit flat, especially when used poorly. The example Ruslan gave of asking a potential spy the name of a commander is way more interesting that doing a flat insight roll. I guess my issue is that I haven't seen an example that actually uses the Schrodinger concept in an interesting way yet. Maybe that's asking too much, though, since it's replacing a mechanic that often isn't very interesting either.

[krugaan]

I'm not trying to break the idea so much as test it. I wouldn't bother trying to test it if I didn't think it was interesting. I wish Ruslan wasn't quite so defensive about it, but I guess I can see how it might feel like he was being ganged up on.

I agree with the premise that the knowledge skills can be a bit flat, especially when used poorly. The example Ruslan gave of asking a potential spy the name of a commander is way more interesting that doing a flat insight roll. I guess my issue is that I haven't seen an example that actually uses the Schrodinger concept in an interesting way yet. Maybe that's asking too much, though, since it's replacing a mechanic that often isn't very interesting either.

Yes, we could all be a bit more civil I guess.

Using the river example:

1) the DM describes the river
2) the ranger states he thinks it is safe
3) rolls high
4) "wave state function" collapses to the "safe river state"

each step influences the next, right?

In normal causality, it would be 4 -> 1 -> 3 -> 2 instead.

Several questions to help clarify:

- What happens if he rolls low? Is the river safe or does he just think the river is safe and it is not?
- how are you describing the river that makes the ranger think it is safe, or he just deciding on a whim?

The reason I have a problem with a Schrodinger is that it seems like it would be very hard not to color your players choices with your own bias, because everything is based on a description you as DM give.

Back to the spy example, Racer X is described as dude pointing the way to the BBEG. In the non-Schrodinger universe, how you describe him is mostly irrelevant, because it's already decided what he is: BBEG minion in disguise. It's easy to model his behavior because you already know everything about him (or should), you can act him out in a bad or good fashion, or not act it out at all, because you can always rely on the dice to help fudge your junk acting skills.

In the Schrodinger universe, since your description is HOW the effect is decided, your skills as an actor have a direct impact on the nature of Racer X, because it will color the expectations of your players. You'll be indirectly controlling your players actions through your descriptions instead of being a (relatively) impartial adjudicator.

I hope this makes my position more clear.


On a side note, the way I see it, dice rolls in DnD are intended to model PC strengths, but don't necessarily override player ones: it allows low-IRL charisma people to play very persuasive PCs. Say a player is trying to deceive an NPC... he can use his PC's charisma and deception proficiencyin place of his own. If the player can figure out a particularly good, believable lie, I'd let it automatically pass, or reduce the DC or whatever.

[Moo, I'm Human]

you know nothing, Jon Snow
YES! Extra History fan!:smallbiggrin: Love that series!

[MaxWilson]

Even if they're not opposed, how does this system align the two? How does having a [player ask a question] and [that question leading to an alternate background path for an event] take into account player choice AND high stats?

You mean [player declares an action] and [the DM assumes the PC is competent and that therefore the situation must such that the unstated variables imply that action makes sense]. The player didn't say "Can I interrogate the guy to find out if he's a spy?" He just interrogated the guy. Yes, he did it with a question, but don't let that confuse you. It was a question which the DM ruled was certain to reveal the truth about the guy's allegiance--that makes it a (highly-effective) action in context.

[mgshamster]

You mean [player declares an action] and [the DM assumes the PC is competent and that therefore the situation must such that the unstated variables imply that action makes sense]. The player didn't say "Can I interrogate the guy to find out if he's a spy?" He just interrogated the guy. Yes, he did it with a question, but don't let that confuse you. It was a question which the DM ruled was certain to reveal the truth about the guy's allegiance--that makes it a (highly-effective) action in context.

If the PC had poor relevant skills, would this situation had turned out differently? And if so, how do we determine the difference?

[Ruslan]

Yes, we could all be a bit more civil I guess.

Using the river example:

1) the DM describes the river
2) the ranger states he thinks it is safe
3) rolls high
4) "wave state function" collapses to the "safe river state"

each step influences the next, right?

In normal causality, it would be 4 -> 1 -> 3 -> 2 instead.

Several questions to help clarify:

- What happens if he rolls low? Is the river safe or does he just think the river is safe and it is not?
- how are you describing the river that makes the ranger think it is safe, or he just deciding on a whim?
- If he gets a poor result, he's wrong. [I prefer "poor result" to "low roll". A highly skilled character can get a high overall result even with a fairly low basic roll]
Whatever statement he made about the river being safe, is not true. And he will find it out when he tried to plunge in. A little bit like in real life. When we're wrong, we don't get to know about it in advance ...

- I'm describing the river in any way I feel like describing it. The player may then ask additional questions, to which I will gladly answer. It is possible (as in case of the soldier) that those questions will actually resolve the Schrodinger state of the river, at least partially. For example, if the ranger takes the time to examine the river and check whether the current is fast or slow, and I tell him "the current is slow", the Schrodinger state of the river is partially resolved. They may still be hidden dangers, but "fast current" is not one of them. Only dangers that are consistent with what occurred previously can remain.

[MaxWilson]

If the PC had poor relevant skills, would this situation had turned out differently? And if so, how do we determine the difference?

Nope. You just wait until he gets into the river, and then roll the dice to find out if he was right. This is especially good if neither the DM nor the players have expertise in how to tell a safe river from a hazardous river (in real life), so that the DM couldn't have given any useful clues anyway and the players wouldn't have understood them if they were. In short, it's good only if 50/50% is an acceptable Bayesian prior.

If you have a strong opinion about which outcome is more appropriate, then you should collapse the wave function before the player rolls the dice. Leaving the outcome quantum only makes sense if both (or all) outcomes are currently equally likely. Since the player's roll on the dice is independent of the actual danger level of the river, his roll (or lack thereof) doesn't provide extra information about the river, so it doesn't collapse the wave function--but the player's awareness of that roll does. Therefore, if the player rolls, you need to either hide his roll from him so he doesn't know what DC he really beat, or you need to collapse the wave function at that point. But delaying the roll until he's actually in the river is identical to hiding his roll from him until then, and you can defer that without any causal problems--as long as nothing else collapsed the wave function first by providing information that favors one hypothesis over the other.

Keep the situation unresolved as long as possible, but no longer.

Any questions?

[Thrudd]

This is a fine system for a collaborative storytelling game, where each player has abilities to dictate certain categories of things in the game world. However, I don't see this working well for D&D, in general. For one thing, the basic assumption of how the game works is different, and the players need to know that. The normal process is that the DM describes what the characters see and hear, the players take actions in response to that or ask further questions about what their characters are perceiving. The DM determines the objective reality of the game world (whether in advance or spontaneously is irrelevant) and the players respond to it.

This system says, instead, that the players' role is to make suggestions or requests regarding the reality of the game world, and the rules of the game determine whether that suggestion is correct. When the results of the dice indicate the players' suggestion is not correct, the DM replaces it with something of their choosing. It is sort of like an elaborate improv game of "yes, but...". In other words, an entirely different game from D&D using a very different basic process. The DM creates a world and a backdrop, which the players then engage with their own suggestions to create some story.

What seems to be suggested, however, is not a completely different game, but that this method of allowing players to direct the game reality can be integrated into a D&D game operating under the standard assumptions. I think that would be very difficult. How will the players know when they are allowed to make suggestions about the game world and when it has been determined by the DM? When is the right time to ask questions of the DM and when is the time to dictate what they believe about the world? If the DM normally dictates the reality, and then at specific times tells the players to make suggestions, it's a dead giveaway that this is an undetermined part of the game and also creates a discontinuity in the game reality.

It's an either/or proposition. Either players are told the game-world's reality by the DM, or they dictate it to the DM, who has presented them with a setting as a backdrop to start the improv. It can't be both at the same time. The DM could secretly use players' perceptions and comments to spontaneously alter the game reality, but using the normal process the players cannot and should not know that.

In the collaborative improv game, the players need to be much more proactive and be more interested in directing the story, making meta-game decisions about what they think would be fun or cool or dramatic. It's a different exercise from receiving input data from the DM, analyzing it, and deciding on an appropriate course of action based on the personality and goals of their character.

[Ruslan]

Even if they're not opposed, how does this system align the two? How does having a [player ask a question] and [that question leading to an alternate background path for an event] take into account player choice AND high stats?

What does it have to do with stats?Nice. Very smooth.
First I'm attacked because "but your system doesn't let you ask the DM a question!", then I post a counterexample and get attacked because "asking a question has nothing to do with high stats".

[krugaan]

- If he gets a poor result, he's wrong. [I prefer "poor result" to "low roll". A highly skilled character can get a high overall result even with a fairly low basic roll]
Whatever statement he made about the river being safe, is not true. And he will find it out when he tried to plunge in. A little bit like in real life. When we're wrong, we don't get to know about it in advance ...

Is this really more "player agency" and less "dice determinant" than before?



- I'm describing the river in any way I feel like describing it. The player may then ask additional questions, to which I will gladly answer.


Ok, but you have to realize that how you answer those questions will eventually determine the players actions, not players acting on information given. If you describe the river as calm and placid, it will be so to the player, and he will act accordingly. If he rolls low, the river has a hidden undercurrent that isn't apparent on the top? That seems even more dice determinant and less player agency than the normal method because the dice are controlling the actual outcome of the events and not just the perceptions of the player. If the determinant method says that the river is calm and placid, but because of dice rolls, the player thinks it's hiding a hidden undercurrent, but swims anyway, he finds out he figured wrong.


It is possible (as in case of the soldier) that those questions will actually resolve the Schrodinger state of the river, at least partially. For example, if the ranger takes the time to examine the river and check whether the current is fast or slow, and I tell him "the current is slow", the Schrodinger state of the river is partially resolved. They may still be hidden dangers, but "fast current" is not one of them. Only dangers that are consistent with what occurred previously can remain.

The more questions they ask, the more it's actually you who is determining the state.

I think I liked the idea better when I wasn't examining it as closely, it seemed like a good idea two pages ago.

edit: added "eventually"

[Ruslan]

The more questions they ask, the more it's actually you who is determining the state.No, not really. It's a collaboration.
They choose which part of the wave function to collapse, by either using dice ("I'll trust him. My gut tells me so, ... and I hope my Insight skill will be able to back it up later"), or roleplay ("I ask him a probing question, let's see what he says"). As for the actual collapse, I can decide, or let the dice decide, as I did with the soldier.

[mgshamster]

Nope. You just wait until he gets into the river, and then roll the dice to find out if he was right. This is especially good if neither the DM nor the players have expertise in how to tell a safe river from a hazardous river (in real life), so that the DM couldn't have given any useful clues anyway and the players wouldn't have understood them if they were. In short, it's good only if 50/50% is an acceptable Bayesian prior.

If you have a strong opinion about which outcome is more appropriate, then you should collapse the wave function before the player rolls the dice. Leaving the outcome quantum only makes sense if both (or all) outcomes are currently equally likely. Since the player's roll on the dice is independent of the actual danger level of the river, his roll (or lack thereof) doesn't provide extra information about the river, so it doesn't collapse the wave function--but the player's awareness of that roll does. Therefore, if the player rolls, you need to either hide his roll from him so he doesn't know what DC he really beat, or you need to collapse the wave function at that point. But delaying the roll until he's actually in the river is identical to hiding his roll from him until then, and you can defer that without any causal problems--as long as nothing else collapsed the wave function first by providing information that favors one hypothesis over the other.

Keep the situation unresolved as long as possible, but no longer.

Ok, that makes a ton of sense. Thank you.


Any questions?

Perhaps. Some follow up.

Our GM creates several uncertainties (effectively our wave function), which remain until a critical moment to be determined by player wording, action, or dice rolls (our collapse).

At what point does this help blend the ideas of player agency with high scores on the character sheet? If it does not hep with this at all, that's ok - I'm just trying to link the underlying theory with the original proposed problems.

[krugaan]

No, not really. It's a collaboration.

yeah, I like that part of it, it works really well if everyone is in sync.


They choose which part of the wave function to collapse, by either using dice ("I'll trust him. My gut tells me so, ... and I hope my Insight skill will be able to back it up later"), or roleplay ("I ask him a probing question, let's see what he says"). As for the actual collapse, I can decide, or let the dice decide, as I did with the soldier.

This is the part I'm trying to get at. Either you decide the truth, or the dice do. The player has agency, I guess, in helping you decide the truth, is that what you meant by increased player agency?

edit: actually, I guess that is what you meant.

[smcmike]

Nice. Very smooth.
First I'm attacked because "but your system doesn't let you ask the DM a question!", then I post a counterexample and get attacked because "asking a question has nothing to do with high stats".

It's not an attack, it's a question. Don't take things so personally. You've proposed a neat idea. Questions are a compliment, even if they come from a place of disagreement.

[krugaan]

Nope. You just wait until he gets into the river, and then roll the dice to find out if he was right. This is especially good if neither the DM nor the players have expertise in how to tell a safe river from a hazardous river (in real life), so that the DM couldn't have given any useful clues anyway and the players wouldn't have understood them if they were. In short, it's good only if 50/50% is an acceptable Bayesian prior.

If you have a strong opinion about which outcome is more appropriate, then you should collapse the wave function before the player rolls the dice. Leaving the outcome quantum only makes sense if both (or all) outcomes are currently equally likely. Since the player's roll on the dice is independent of the actual danger level of the river, his roll (or lack thereof) doesn't provide extra information about the river, so it doesn't collapse the wave function--but the player's awareness of that roll does. Therefore, if the player rolls, you need to either hide his roll from him so he doesn't know what DC he really beat, or you need to collapse the wave function at that point. But delaying the roll until he's actually in the river is identical to hiding his roll from him until then, and you can defer that without any causal problems--as long as nothing else collapsed the wave function first by providing information that favors one hypothesis over the other.

Keep the situation unresolved as long as possible, but no longer.

Any questions?

Ok, yeah, that does make sense, sort of...

I think I prefer the regular system. It's simpler. Bad knowledge rolls on dice don't give flawed advice, they just indicate "no idea".

[krugaan]

It's not an attack, it's a question. Don't take things so personally. You've proposed a neat idea. Questions are a compliment, even if they come from a place of disagreement.

"Let me never fall into the vulgar mistake of dreaming that I am persecuted whenever I am contradicted." -- Ralph Waldo Emerson

[MaxWilson]

Our GM creates several uncertainties (effectively our wave function), which remain until a critical moment to be determined by player wording, action, or dice rolls (our collapse).

At what point does this help blend the ideas of player agency with high scores on the character sheet? If it does not hep with this at all, that's ok - I'm just trying to link the underlying theory with the original proposed problems.

I'm not sure I understand the question, but I'll try:

Schrodingering doesn't really have anything to do with player agency at all. I mean, I know we discussed earlier how it was definitely not PC agency, but player agency is something different in my book: it's the perception that the player is able to take actions in the game world that have effects which correlate to the player's intentions.

Example: in a Choose-Your-Own Adventure, I often feel like I want to take a third option other than the two I'm given. Instead of fighting the robbers or surrendering, I want to hide. Actually, the most common things I wanted to do but couldn't are very D&D-ish: I wanted to fight the robot (combat), or I wanted to break into the building (exploration). In D&D, thanks to infinite resolution and the existence of a (good) DM, I really can say, "I use Mold Earth to dig a pit trap in front of the troll's cave", or "I break the door off its hinges." (My players loooove destructible environments.) That's agency, but it's also agency if breaking the door off its hinges leads to getting arrested by the house guards inside the door, and it's also player agency if the door turns out to be too strong for them (made of Adamantine) as long as the player perceives that to be a natural consequence/correlate of his actions and not just a passive-aggressive way for the DM to say 'No.' Agency is perceptual, and a lot of being a good DM is taking care to telegraph things appropriately so that players never feel (even incorrectly!) that you're closing down their options for your own convenience.

From this perspective, Schrodingering does not interact with agency at all because it's designed to have zero important impact on the game world. Or at least, the version of Schrodingering that I got out of Ruslan's original post, and which I'm now considering using, does not. But there's a trick here: "important" is being measured by the DM. Maybe I genuinely don't care whether Mourn found a rock to sit on while he whittled his cowfish--but if Mourn's player does care, that's a net win for the table as a whole. And as a sandbox DM, there's a lot that I don't care about, since I'm not invested in any particular outcome, so I could Schrodinger lots of things without changing anything "important" to me. After all, it's not like it's rare for me to make stuff up on the fly--I create plenty of adventures/missions by random rolls on a random table (http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2013/09/on-generator-of-missions.html), then using creativity to fill in the blanks between them. By letting players contribute some of that random content, I imagine I'd be steering the game in the direction of things they thought was cool, without compromising any of the design space that I've already reserved for other things. My vetoing a player's requested Schrodinger would function identically to me vetoing a random table result that didn't catch my fancy.

I kind of feel like I may have contradicted myself a bit above--if so, forgive me, I'm as new to this Schrodinger concept as you are and I'm still mulling it over in my head. Didn't end up using it at all last night.

Except, maybe I did in a way--I had a new player visiting, and to introduce him to the game I cast him as the king's purportedly evil advisor who was handing out quests, and told him to make up an easy quest, a hard quest, and an evil quest. Long story short: he did, and I cut in once or twice to tweak the details, and the players did the first two quests and are now paralyzed with indecision at the requirement that they take the homeless people and the nobles who helped with their first quests and "make them fight to the death." To my vast secret amusement, only one of the players has rejected the quest out of hand. It's a test of character of course: the king of Blogden is looking for someone to depose him so he can marry an elf girl (elves = low status hobos, akin to Dark Sun elves), and he wants that person to have be competent, virtuous, and have good established relationships with the people and the nobility. So the "evil" advisor is helping the king out with his test... anyway, the point is that I did actually incorporate player-generated content last night and the other players had fun with it. And maybe I wouldn't have done that if I hadn't been mulling over this thread in the back of my mind.

[RickAllison]

Ok, yeah, that does make sense, sort of...

I think I prefer the regular system. It's simpler. Bad knowledge rolls on dice don't give flawed advice, they just indicate "no idea".

I actually like Knowledge rolls giving false information if it's a REALLY low roll. Of course, that's usually self-inflicted. For instance, my Spelljammer minotaur's knowledge of a Tarrasque:

20: maybe world-ending beast, nigh-invulnerable to magic or might

15: giant beastie that's highly resistant to attack.

10: a giant, tough reptile

<5: It is the legendary Scaled Carnivorous Tyrannohamstersaurus of Ill Omen! Flee! FLEE!!!"

[mgshamster]

I'm not sure I understand the question, but I'll try:

Quick response while trying to get dinner for the kids (will read the rest of your post a bit later).

Basically, I'm trying to tie the Schrodinger idea with the opening post and how it solves the proposed problems in the opening post.

Again, thank you for taking the time to help me understand.

[krugaan]

Schrodingering doesn't really have anything to do with player agency at all. I mean, I know we discussed earlier how it was definitely not PC agency, but player agency is something different in my book: it's the perception that the player is able to take actions in the game world that have effects which correlate to the player's intentions.

This is my definition as well ... I think.



From this perspective, Schrodingering does not interact with agency at all because it's designed to have zero important impact on the game world. Or at least, the version of Schrodingering that I got out of Ruslan's original post, and which I'm now considering using, does not. But there's a trick here: "important" is being measured by the DM. Maybe I genuinely don't care whether Mourn found a rock to sit on while he whittled his cowfish--but if Mourn's player does care, that's a net win for the table as a whole. And as a sandbox DM, there's a lot that I don't care about, since I'm not invested in any particular outcome, so I could Schrodinger lots of things without changing anything "important" to me. After all, it's not like it's rare for me to make stuff up on the fly--I create plenty of adventures/missions by random rolls on a random table (http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2013/09/on-generator-of-missions.html), then using creativity to fill in the blanks between them. By letting players contribute some of that random content, I imagine I'd be steering the game in the direction of things they thought was cool, without compromising any of the design space that I've already reserved for other things. My vetoing a player's requested Schrodinger would function identically to me vetoing a random table result that didn't catch my fancy.


The thing is, a good DM can achieve much of the same result. I guess the trick is knowing when to Schrodinger and when not to, which is a question that hasn't really been answered yet. Schrodinger seems only really useful if the DM just isn't sure what he wants his universe to do, basically asking the players "what would you like to happen?" Which I suppose isn't bad, really; you play with a rotating cast of DMs?



I kind of feel like I may have contradicted myself a bit above--if so, forgive me, I'm as new to this Schrodinger concept as you are and I'm still mulling it over in my head. Didn't end up using it at all last night.

Hah, well, sort of. I logic my way through these things by typing posts too.


Except, maybe I did in a way--I had a new player visiting, and to introduce him to the game I cast him as the king's purportedly evil advisor who was handing out quests, and told him to make up an easy quest, a hard quest, and an evil quest. Long story short: he did, and I cut in once or twice to tweak the details, and the players did the first two quests and are now paralyzed with indecision at the requirement that they take the homeless people and the nobles who helped with their first quests and "make them fight to the death." To my vast secret amusement, only one of the players has rejected the quest out of hand. It's a test of character of course: the king of Blogden is looking for someone to depose him so he can marry an elf girl (elves = low status hobos, akin to Dark Sun elves), and he wants that person to have be competent, virtuous, and have good established relationships with the people and the nobility. So the "evil" advisor is helping the king out with his test... anyway, the point is that I did actually incorporate player-generated content last night and the other players had fun with it. And maybe I wouldn't have done that if I hadn't been mulling over this thread in the back of my mind.

That's exceptionally cool ... but not really Schrodingery, IMO. It is very player agency-ish, though.

[krugaan]

I actually like Knowledge rolls giving false information if it's a REALLY low roll. Of course, that's usually self-inflicted. For instance, my Spelljammer minotaur's knowledge of a Tarrasque:

20: maybe world-ending beast, nigh-invulnerable to magic or might

15: giant beastie that's highly resistant to attack.

10: a giant, tough reptile

<5: It is the legendary Scaled Carnivorous Tyrannohamstersaurus of Ill Omen! Flee! FLEE!!!"

Lol, but I think this exact situation is what Ruslan dislikes and is trying to resolve with Schrodingering ... forcing the player to roleplay against his wishes due to a bad dice roll.

edit: hmmm ... Schrodingering. hahahahahahahahah

[RickAllison]

So let me see if I'm correctly understanding the positions:

Regular: DM determines status, players roll to know status based on DM's decision, player agency acts on knowledge of status.

Schrodinger's: player agency acts, players roll to know status based on agency, DM determines status based on roll.

Player agency: responds to information in regular, creates information in Schrodinger's.

[smcmike]

I actually like Knowledge rolls giving false information if it's a REALLY low roll.


Yeah, that's actually one thing I like about this system, or at least a goal that this system made me think about.

I like the idea that confidently held incorrect knowledge is a possibility. On the other hand, the player really isn't going to be confident in pre-check information, no matter how confidently they state it. In the end I think I prefer the possibility of confidently held correct information, particularly where that information presents a challenge to overcome.

[Tanarii]

So let me see if I'm correctly understanding the positions:

Regular: DM determines status, players roll to know status based on DM's decision, player agency acts on knowledge of status.

Schrodinger's: player agency acts, players roll to know status based on agency, DM determines status based on roll.

Player agency: responds to information in regular, creates information in Schrodinger's.honestly, most DMs I know already do some combination/blend of these with skill checks. Including me. Sometimes a check is just used to determine success or failure based on predetermined in-game reality. Other times it's used to determine what happens based on degree of success or failure, combined with the player's intent.

In other words, for some checks narrative in-game reality is determined after the fact by the outcome of the die roll, based on plausible outcomes purely derived from the player's intent and approach.

[krugaan]

honestly, most DMs I know already do some combination/blend of these with skill checks. Including me. Sometimes a check is just used to determine success or failure based on predetermined in-game reality. Other times it's used to determine what happens based on degree of success or failure, combined with the player's intent.

In other words, for some checks narrative in-game reality is determined after the fact by the outcome of the die roll, based on plausible outcomes purely derived from the player's intent and approach.

I think, in context, this purely effects knowledge checks, for the most part. It's natural to do this for obvious examples when the DM does not know, but Schrodingering is a case of willful not knowing so the player can provide input, and gain agency.

The river example, I think, is a bad one. The spy one is more fitting, I think.

[mgshamster]

I'm not sure I understand the question, but I'll try:

Ok, here I go.


Schrodingering doesn't really have anything to do with player agency at all. I mean, I know we discussed earlier how it was definitely not PC agency, but player agency is something different in my book: it's the perception that the player is able to take actions in the game world that have effects which correlate to the player's intentions.

Ok, so that pretty much explains my confusion. See, I was trying to force a connection, but if there is none, then it leaves one baffled individual in the wake.


Example: in a Choose-Your-Own Adventure, I often feel like I want to take a third option other than the two I'm given. Instead of fighting the robbers or surrendering, I want to hide. Actually, the most common things I wanted to do but couldn't are very D&D-ish: I wanted to fight the robot (combat), or I wanted to break into the building (exploration).

Having options, even if limited, can still be a form of agency. Even only two options in a choose your own adventure book is more agency than a book that does not allow you to choose at all.

On the other hand, limiting choices is also a way of providing the illusion of choice in a railroad campaign. Like when I give my kids the choice of broccoli or cauliflower.


In D&D, thanks to infinite resolution and the existence of a (good) DM, I really can say, "I use Mold Earth to dig a pit trap in front of the troll's cave", or "I break the door off its hinges." (My players loooove destructible environments.) That's agency, but it's also agency if breaking the door off its hinges leads to getting arrested by the house guards inside the door, and it's also player agency if the door turns out to be too strong for them (made of Adamantine) as long as the player perceives that to be a natural consequence/correlate of his actions and not just a passive-aggressive way for the DM to say 'No.' Agency is perceptual, and a lot of being a good DM is taking care to telegraph things appropriately so that players never feel (even incorrectly!) that you're closing down their options for your own convenience.

From this perspective, Schrodingering does not interact with agency at all because it's designed to have zero important impact on the game world. Or at least, the version of Schrodingering that I got out of Ruslan's original post, and which I'm now considering using, does not. But there's a trick here: "important" is being measured by the DM. Maybe I genuinely don't care whether Mourn found a rock to sit on while he whittled his cowfish--but if Mourn's player does care, that's a net win for the table as a whole. And as a sandbox DM, there's a lot that I don't care about, since I'm not invested in any particular outcome, so I could Schrodinger lots of things without changing anything "important" to me. After all, it's not like it's rare for me to make stuff up on the fly--I create plenty of adventures/missions by random rolls on a random table (http://hackslashmaster.blogspot.com/2013/09/on-generator-of-missions.html), then using creativity to fill in the blanks between them. By letting players contribute some of that random content, I imagine I'd be steering the game in the direction of things they thought was cool, without compromising any of the design space that I've already reserved for other things. My vetoing a player's requested Schrodinger would function identically to me vetoing a random table result that didn't catch my fancy.

I feel like this is all just good GMing tactics - like using your players ideas on the fly and adding it to the game. It doesn't feel like a planned uncertainty event - it just feels like standard adaptation to input.


I kind of feel like I may have contradicted myself a bit above--if so, forgive me, I'm as new to this Schrodinger concept as you are and I'm still mulling it over in my head. Didn't end up using it at all last night.

We're all parsing our ideas as we type them out. And evolving our opinions as we explore new ideas is an important part of growth and understanding. :)


Except, maybe I did in a way--I had a new player visiting, and to introduce him to the game I cast him as the king's purportedly evil advisor who was handing out quests, and told him to make up an easy quest, a hard quest, and an evil quest. Long story short: he did, and I cut in once or twice to tweak the details, and the players did the first two quests and are now paralyzed with indecision at the requirement that they take the homeless people and the nobles who helped with their first quests and "make them fight to the death." To my vast secret amusement, only one of the players has rejected the quest out of hand. It's a test of character of course: the king of Blogden is looking for someone to depose him so he can marry an elf girl (elves = low status hobos, akin to Dark Sun elves), and he wants that person to have be competent, virtuous, and have good established relationships with the people and the nobility. So the "evil" advisor is helping the king out with his test... anyway, the point is that I did actually incorporate player-generated content last night and the other players had fun with it. And maybe I wouldn't have done that if I hadn't been mulling over this thread in the back of my mind.

And now I'm stealing these ideas for my game. :)

I felt like I would have had a lot more to say in response to your post, but I ended up just agreeing with most of it. Thanks for your help with my understanding of the concept. I feel that most of my confusion lies with trying to force two unrelated concepts into a relationship - and it just flat out wasn't working.

[AmayaElls]

As a player I'm not sure rolls have to be involved at all to influence the world. My DM for example asks us frequently to describe how things work (if it's heavily related to our character). I recently helped design a good portion of the hierarchy of the university my character grew up in. For more on the fly things we may make comments about the situation OOC and it is not uncommon for the DM to take those.

For me (though perhaps not for others) the additional dice rolls are an unnecessary slow down to ordinary communal story telling. I also think the descriptions you give about your situations could easily be done role playing around a decision, some people have given examples of where they have had a player give a reason for something, a rule, and because it is cool and fits the DM has gone with it. Just because we are players doesn't mean our DMs have not let us engage in developing the setting as well as making our own choices.

This seems interesting as a way of playing, but I'm not sure I like the rolling aspect personally.