A Question Of Agency?

[generic]

"Gameworld integrity" sounds like a smuggling compartment for "how I like my games to work."

Stop him! He's discovered that the ludonarrative dissonance of my non-linear delineation of temporalities is external to his!

Superfluous verbiage intentional.

 

[FrogReaver]

"Gameworld integrity" sounds like a smuggling compartment for "how I like my games to work."

Take it up with the one who first used the term here.

 

[generic]

Take it up with the one who first used the term here.

That doesn't excuse using a loaded term...

Common sense dictates that you think about what a term means before dying on a hill for its virtues.

In my view, of course.

 

[FrogReaver]

That doesn't excuse using a loaded term...

What does?

Common sense dictates that you think about what a term means before dying on a hill for its virtues.

In my view, of course.

It's not cool to insinuate others lack common sense.

 

[generic]

What does?


It's not cool to insinuate others lack common sense.

Apologies, I didn't mean to insinuate anything.

As for "what does?", all I can reply is that you seemed to respond to Ovinomancer's objection to your usage of game world integrity by saying, in essence "I didn't say it first, it's not my fault", which doesn't excuse the methods which your argued, and saying "take it up with the one who first used it here" is akin to quoting a false source in your argument, and then telling your professor to "take it up with E.E. Cummings".

Trust me, speaking from experience (not real, of course), that doesn't work.

 

[FrogReaver]

Apologies, I didn't mean to insinuate anything.

As for "what does?", all I can reply is that you seemed to respond to Ovinomancer's objection to your usage of game world integrity by saying, in essence "I didn't say it first, it's not my fault", which doesn't excuse the methods which your argued, and saying "take it up with the one who first used it here" is akin to quoting a false source in your argument, and then telling your professor to "take it up with E.E. Cummings".

Trust me, speaking from experience (not real, of course), that doesn't work.

LOL. I don't think it's remotely in the same ballpark as that example.

 

[generic]

LOL. I don't think it's remotely in the same ballpark as that example.

Exactly, I meant to say that in sort of a joking manner, but it doesn't often translate well through text. Let's chalk it up to a friendly misunderstanding.

 

[FrogReaver]

I would say that at least a reputation mechanic is entirely about the character.

I'm undecided about where reputation mechanics fall.

 

[FrogReaver]

Exactly, I meant to say that in sort of a joking manner, but it doesn't often translate well through text. Let's chalk it up to a friendly misunderstanding.

The example was funny enough on it's own. It lightened it up so much that no offense was taken at all from it even with the thought that it was a serious comparison.

 

[Lanefan]

As I've already allowed, you have some kind of social agency, in real life, to play act your character however you want. This isn't required by the game, though, so doesn't translate into agency in the game. The ability to do a thing that isn't necessary to the game can't be said to be part of the game. It's also present in all games, in equal measure, so it's a wash in considerations of agency.

I disagree, for several reasons.

First, you don't have equal agency across all tables to "play act" what you want how you want. Look no further than the recent thread re playing characters not of one's own gender; or any thread regarding allowance of evil characters; or anywhere someone denigrates doing something "because it's what the character would do" even though following the character wherever it leads you is the purest form of RP.

These kind of arbitrary limitations IMO hammer player agency far harder than most of what's been discussed in here.

Second, to blanket-declare that role-play isn't required by the game and-or isn't necessary to the game is in error; in that some systems (e.g. 1e D&D and some LARPs) actively reward "good roleplaying" (in 1e this is done via added XP, and faster/cheaper training at level-up).

Third, to say that role-playing isn't necessary in a role-playing game is...well, let's just say it's a bit much.

That said, in the grand scheme of how various systems are written and intended this type of agency is probably more or less a wash, yes. But that it's a wash is no reason to discount RP-agency from consideration here; if for no other reason than not every table plays their system as written or intended and some tables/GMs in fact do deny RP agency on a regular basis.