What is *worldbuilding* for?

[Aldarc]

And a straw windmill at that, since I haven't actually done any math. You don't need to do math to know that if you have complete agency it's 100%, no agency at all it's 0%, or limited agency is somewhere in-between. Nor do you have to do math to know that if my agency is complete and so is [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s, they are both at an equal percentage, with that percentage being 100%.

You have talked about addition and subtraction in regards to percentages. You repeat the claim that you have "complete agency" and that it exists at "100% agency" without ever substantiating that.

[MENTION=5142]Aldarc[/MENTION] continues to alter my argument, and then respond to his own fictitious change. A classic Strawman.

Citation needed; your personal attacks, however, are not.

 

[Bedrockgames]

The limitations on player agency over the content of the shared fiction in Story Now gaming are the genre considerations, themes, and other concerns/priorities introduced by the players themselves? I don't get that.

Edited to add: Those are examples of the players exercising control/agency over the content of the fiction, not the other way around!

I think we could debate which approach is quantifiably more free all day, and no one would ever agree, because this is about a very subjective conceptualization of play. I can completely buy, that for someone interested in exploring the themes Permerton and company want, this approach feels like greater agency. However, I the point we are trying convey here is being able to shape the story isn't the only thing that matters when you are talking about player freedom and agency. If you are there to experience that, of course it will feel like greater agency to you. But someone like Max isn't using that as a benchmark for how free he is. I am willing to bet, if Max played in a game with Pemerton's style, he'd feel his agency being curtailed. While Pemerton would probably feel the same way in a game using Max's approach.

Also, what does this ultimately have to do with world building? We've been debating agency for God knows how many pages, and I am beginning to wonder why we are so stuck on this point. Obviously people disagree about it. I don't see the conversation moving that much more in either direction at this stage.

Right now I feel like this whole conversation is veering into sophistry IMO. I am reminded of the corn scene in I, Claudius.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I would say that if you believe that Pemerton is arguing in bad faith, then you may want to reexamine your own "good faith" in this discussion.

I am trying to. But it is very difficult to treat arguments as being good faith, when you state an opinion and people restate your position to mean something completely different.

 

[Aldarc]

I am trying to. But it is very difficult to treat arguments as being good faith, when you state an opinion and people restate your position to mean something completely different.

That does sound frustrating, but I suspect that Pemerton and others are also frustrated from being repeatedly subjected to similar issues. If you were both feeling this way - that neither side was operating in food faith due to misconceptions/misrepresentations of your argument - how might you go forward in your conversation?

 

[Ovinomancer]

I am clarifying my original statements. If you agree, then we can move on.

In general, the use of "more" and "less" are almost unavoidable as terms of discourse in this discussion of agency, but I find that these arguments are essentially qualitative arguments couched in quantitative language. It's about like attempting somehow to quantify "Which country has more liberty: US or Canada?" It's a question attempting to quantify a more abstract notion with differing moral values about what qualifies as "liberty." But my acquiesence of using the terms "more" and "less" is more or less (no pun intended) an admission that these are almost unescapable when discussing what amount to moral values, principles, and such in the context of gaming.

No, I dislike you falsely reading "vinegar" into my statements.

Except I don't, which again is you misreading things into my statements that are not there. Look, my own work is primarily religious in nature. For the last 10 years and counting, I have been surrounded by seminarians, priests, and religious scholars. It tends to flavor a lot of my language, but in this case, Bedrockgames introduced the language of religion in the discourse when describing the discussion in terms of religious conversion. Though I agree with Bedrockgames that this sentiment tends to crop a lot, I also find that the reverse to also be true, namely that a sort of religious fervor is present not only for "conversion," but also for any perceived "heresy" to the norms. This is not self-righteousness. This is not vinegar. This is not anger. It's simply a descriptive observation of our gaming culture. But I certainly will "have a bit of anger" when mistakenly people admonish me at length for behaviors and attitudes that I did not perform.

Note to Self: In the future remember that gratitude is owed to one who prefaces insults of character with one sentence of general agreement with no substantive follow-through.

Where did I insult your character? I spoke to your arguments, not your character.

Bringing religion into a discussion on playing pretend elves (unless it's the religion of the legend elves under discussion) is fraught. It's well known to be fraught. That you work in a religion-oriented field and yet seemingly are unaware of this is... odd? The use of religious terminology, especially in a pejorative sense, ous not sneering that I routinely assume "oh, this person must work in a religion-oriented field, their probably just using familiar terminology that, absent that understanding, would appear inflammatory." I'm willing to accept your explanation, but not willing to accept criticism that your use of pejorative religious terms placed a burden on me to figure out ways you might not have meant them pejoratively. You seem like a smart person -- I general assume smart people are aware of what they are saying. I get everyday use seeping into other topics, but not that I'm supposed to know that about you a priori.

 

[Aldarc]

Where did I insult your character? I spoke to your arguments, not your character.

The "full of vinegar and holier-than-thou righteousness." That's not just about the words; that's an implicit statement on the person behind the words, which was then followed up with admonishment on my posting behavior based on that misreading.

Bringing religion into a discussion on playing pretend elves (unless it's the religion of the legend elves under discussion) is fraught.

And so the blame gets shifted on me. Lovely.

It's well known to be fraught. That you work in a religion-oriented field and yet seemingly are unaware of this is... odd?

And this is patronizing. Cut it out.

The use of religious terminology, especially in a pejorative sense, ous not sneering that I routinely assume "oh, this person must work in a religion-oriented field, their probably just using familiar terminology that, absent that understanding, would appear inflammatory." I'm willing to accept your explanation, but not willing to accept criticism that your use of pejorative religious terms placed a burden on me to figure out ways you might not have meant them pejoratively. You seem like a smart person -- I general assume smart people are aware of what they are saying. I get everyday use seeping into other topics, but not that I'm supposed to know that about you a priori.

What this tells me is that you regard the use of religious language as a pejorative. I don't. That's fine. But don't eisegete that into my statements. I don't assume that people know what I do, but I did expect that most reasonable people will respectfully give others the benefit of the doubt.

Edit: This particular conversation has mostly run its course. I am game to drop it if you are, such that more "productive" - and I do use that term loosely - conversation can hopefully take root in this thread.

 

[Maxperson]

You have talked about addition and subtraction in regards to percentages.

Yes, I mentioned that someone else added my agency and his agency. For MY argument, see the post you just responded to.

You repeat the claim that you have "complete agency" and that it exists at "100% agency" without ever substantiating that.

I defined agency and said that it is not limited in my game. That is enough to substantiate my 100% claim.

Citation needed; your personal attacks, however, are not.

First, I cite your posts. Odd that you would need me to do that. Second, pointing out your Strawman isn't a personal attack.

 

[Ovinomancer]

The "full of vinegar and holier-than-thou righteousness." That's not just about the words; that's an implicit statement on the person behind the words, which was then followed up with admonishment on my posting behavior based on that misreading.

And so the blame gets shifted on me. Lovely.

And this is patronizing. Cut it out.

What this tells me is that you regard the use of religious language as a pejorative. I don't. That's fine. But don't eisegete that into my statements. I don't assume that people know what I do, but I did expect that most reasonable people will respectfully give others the benefit of the doubt.

Edit: This particular conversation has mostly run its course. I am game to drop it if you are, such that more "productive" - and I do use that term loosely - conversation can hopefully take root in this thread.

You're right, holier than thou was a comment on your character. Mea culpa.

That said, no, religious language is not inherently pejorative. The religious language you chose was pejorative.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That does sound frustrating, but I suspect that Pemerton and others are also frustrated from being repeatedly subjected to similar issues. If you were both feeling this way - that neither side was operating in food faith due to misconceptions/misrepresentations of your argument - how might you go forward in your conversation?

I have an answer: by advocating for your style and not trying to use reductive analysis on other styles without first honestly critiquing your own.

If posters stuck to "here's how I play and have fun!" we'd be better off, and that goes to both sides.

Alternatively, if you ask what a particular tool is used for by other players, maybe just acknowledge their uses rather than reduce it to terms like choose-your-own-adventure? Inviting people to give you honest input and then belittling that input is generally going to cause a backlash. If this is surprising to you....

 

[Tony Vargas]

Sure. But when I talk about whether or not a system supports classic dungeon-crawling, I'm not talking about it's capacity to generate a certain sort of imagined series of happenings. I'm talking about the actual play experience it will deliver.

Nod, my comment was a tangent from that point, I guess.

You're right that, if it's the process/procedure of an old-school dungeon crawl that you're trying to replicate, you have to go back and use the old-school systems & conventions that produced it, or new ones that emulate the same pathologies. But, if you want the kind of meta-genre that they took place in or the kind of story they could, at their best, produce, then you could get either or both from very different games.