A Question Of Agency?

[FrogReaver]

I don’t know exactly how to respond to this.

I mean, ignoring the faulty logic that a player can contribute in an infinite capacity,

You don't think they can? If they can't then what's their limitation? Time? Campaign length? Something else?

I suppose I’d say that infinity plus one is indeed more than infinity. I guess?

Mathematically it isn't.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Infinity plus 1 is still infinity

 

[darkbard]

"Argumentation" in this thread has officially jumped the shark.

 

[aramis erak]

I don't find it to be very common for someone to (i) know a new field only from someone else's account of it, and then (ii) on the basis of that tell the other person they've got it wrong. This seems to suffer from one obvious methodological flaw: it depends on treating the person as a reliable source of information (because they are how one learned about the new field) and yet arguing that they are not a reliable source of information (because they are wrong).

I worked in Elementary Ed... it's annoyingly common for wealthy kids to do just that with social studies content. Often parroting political rhetoric to wrong conclusions.

I see some of that in this thread - arguing positions from rhetoric rather than the source material.

I used you as an example only because it was straightfoward to illustrate the issue: some informed indirect analysis is useful, but only for some questions.

 

[FrogReaver]

"Argumentation" in this thread has officially jumped the shark.

Consider the question: Do longer campaigns allow more player agency than shorter campaigns?

 

[Manbearcat]

Consider the question: Do longer campaigns allow more player agency than shorter campaigns?

If a system requires/enables Force and a GM's propensity to deploy Force is a function of time...then it nears a virtual certainty that longer campaigns will tend to decrease player agency.

 

[Manbearcat]

I worked in Elementary Ed... it's annoyingly common for wealthy kids to do just that with social studies content. Often parroting political rhetoric to wrong conclusions.

I see some of that in this thread - arguing positions from rhetoric rather than the source material.

I used you as an example only because it was straightfoward to illustrate the issue: some informed indirect analysis is useful, but only for some questions.

All models are wrong but some are useful. People who (a) have a forensic knowledge base within a given field/trade archetype/discipline, (b) significant experiential data to rely upon, (c) and a reasonable measure of awareness of their own cognitive biases and limitations will tend to make extrapolations and inferences that are less error prone (not correct but "correct-er") than those that possess less of (a), (b), (c).

 

[hawkeyefan]

You don't think they can? If they can't then what's their limitation? Time? Campaign length? Something else?

The hills to the north?

Mathematically it isn't.

Yes I know. I was being absurd.

 

[zarionofarabel]

Consider the question: Do longer campaigns allow more player agency than shorter campaigns?

I think narrative momentum would point to yes as the more the players affect the narrative, the more the affected narrative is a result of their agency. Does that even make sense? Well, it does to me! Hahaha!

If a system requires/enables Force and a GM's propensity to deploy Force is a function of time...then it nears a virtual certainty that longer campaigns will tend to decrease player agency.

How so? If the players have agency, isn't the GM forced more and more to change the events of the world because of the characters actions?

 

[Manbearcat]

I think narrative momentum would point to yes as the more the players affect the narrative, the more the affected narrative is a result of their agency. Does that even make sense? Well, it does to me! Hahaha!

How so? If the players have agency, isn't the GM forced more and more to change the events of the world because of the characters actions?

"Force" with a capital "F." Not the innocuous "forced" meaning "required."

You know what a "Railroad" is, yes? A Railroad is just sufficient instances of "GM Force" such that the trajectory of play has been wrested from the players to the GM (and by the GM).

Force is any moment where an output of play says the gamestate should transition to x or y, but the GM has either overtly or (more common) covertly rigged it/overturned it to transition to gamestate z (subverting the player's or the system's autonomy/input and inserting their own input in their stead).

Hence, if the system either requires Force or enables Force and the GM's propensity to deploy Force is a function of time, then its damn near certain that agency will decrease as campaigns grow in length.