A Question Of Agency?

[generic]

None of that describes a chance encounter which is what the advocate of that system described it as doing. Now if he's mistaken that's fine, but my objection is having such a mechanic produce chance encounters.

The fiction has no temporality. A game mechanic which linearly affects a non-causative, 'past' in the fiction can function as a ret-con whenever you need it to.

The system isn't a chance encounter, it's a literal changing of the preexisting fiction.

But, in this case, it doesn't matter, the fiction has no temporality, and, therefore, no causatives, we just see it that way.

 

[Hriston]

None of that describes a chance encounter which is what the advocate of that system described it as doing. Now if he's mistaken that's fine, but my objection is having such a mechanic produce chance encounters.

Well, it is by chance that a person fitting the description of one you would like to meet just so happens to be coming along when you meet them. I don't see this as being any different from there happening to be food in the environment to be found on a successful foraging check.

 

[FrogReaver]

No I know what you’re saying and what you’ve said. It’s just confused.

The answer to why I say it’s confused is in the post you’ve directly quoted here.

You’re giving volitional force to a thing (“fiction”) that fundamentally has no such thing. We invest it with life and then we feel however we do about that investment.

I don't know what you mean by giving volitional force to a thing. But the 2nd part isn't what my issue is.

Because it’s necessary for you to have a certain arrangement of content generation in order for you to feel a certain way about it is not an objective fact about “the causal relationships within the fiction.” Because there is no such thing as that.

Characters fictional actions either cause something to happen in the fiction or they don't.

There are 3 cases.
1. Characters action is the cause of something that happens in the fiction such that the character could say "my action caused this" and have it be true within the fiction.
2. Characters action is the cause of something that happens in the fiction such that the character would say "my action did not cause this" and have it be true within the fiction.
3. Characters action did not cause something to happen in the fiction in any way.

There is a clear difference between 1 and 2 and it's not simply about preference.

Now, zoom it out and look at it as a game (not “a fiction”) and look at the content generation procedures necessary to test skill or protagonism (not necessary to “feel like you’re inhabiting a fiction with internally consistent causal relationships”), then it’s a different conversation.

But this all circles back to roleplay and agency. I don't expect you to buy this right off but consider the argument below:
Character actions that cause something to happen in the fiction but that the character could say in the fiction "my action did not cause this" hamper role playing (because characters do things for a reason and this takes away the reason they would ever perform that action). Then the final A->B: if roleplay is being hampered then my agency to roleplay is being hampered (which should be fairly obvious IMO).

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, it is by chance that a person fitting the description of one you would like to meet just so happens to be coming along when you meet them. I don't see this as being any different from there happening to be food in the environment to be found on a successful foraging check.

WIth the person you've authored him as coming to you. With the foraging/food you are authoring you are going to it...

 

[hawkeyefan]

None of that describes a chance encounter which is what the advocate of that system described it as doing. Now if he's mistaken that's fine, but my objection is having such a mechanic produce chance encounters.

Do you think your objection is because in the example offered of the chance encounter, it’s the player rather than the character who is making the request?

And if so, do you think this preference speaks about player agency in any way?

 

[generic]

The fiction doesn't function like the real world.

If the player makes a check to forage, or to find a contact, the game system offers a chance for them to change the fiction that the character exists in.

If the player chooses to roll for useful contacts, and rolls high, those contacts are ret-conned in for their character. I see no problem with this. The fiction has no causality, and absolutely no temporal integrity.

 

[generic]

WIth the person you've authored him as coming to you. With the foraging/food you are authoring you are going to it...

False, you are authoring in the existence of food/a person. The food didn't 'exist' before you made a check for it.

 

[Campbell]

I believe that analysis of play firmly in meat space - the things the human beings are doing around the table. I think the perspective we take on during that act of play (and techniques for the feeling of it all being real) are also important, but they should not be confused for the actual processes occurring in real life.

Justin Alexander's analysis might be fruitful for explaining the feelings that some people have about certain games. It has nothing to do with actual play processes and procedures. It also is so rooted in a very particular set of play priorities that it's entirely useless to people who do not share those priorities.

 

[FrogReaver]

False, you are authoring in the existence of food/a person. The food didn't 'exist' before you made a check for it.

The food existed before my check. It's just a matter of if I was able to locate it.

 

[prabe]

If the player chooses to roll for useful contacts, and rolls high, those contacts are ret-conned in for their character. I see no problem with this. The fiction has no causality, and absolutely no temporal integrity.

I think there are some people who have issues with this. For instance, I get your point, but if I'm navigating the fiction, I prefer for it to remain as consistent as possible, for my own suspension of disbelief: If a specific NPC has been in one place, there needs to be reason/explanation for them to be in a different one, now. That's a matter of taste and preference, though; I don't think I'm saying you're wrong, exactly--just limning a difference.