Alright, going to try to talk about some of these things with some specificity. I wrote in my last response to
@pemerton why I think it may be a worthwhile endeavor to develop this kind of matrix. I also addressed some of the first paragraph below, so I'm just going to refer back to that and do a bit more on that end.
I'm absolutely able of being moved off of the development of such a matrix if it doesn't enhance the ability to achieve the things I wrote in that last post to pemerton. I'm not there yet though (and I'm working through these things in real time).
Okay, I think I see what you're saying, here, and that's when an obstacle is presented (however) that the player can move his Character to deal with it (I swing my sword at the orc!), or the Situation (the orc doesn't notice Bob crouched behind him and trips over him when he steps back!), or the Setting. To be honest, I'm not sure how Setting works here -- what does this entail that isn't in the Situation? To me, it would have to be those things that are the base genre assumptions, or perhaps already established fiction, but we've talked about the retcon and the lack of games that actually instantiate this.
I'm not sure I really agree with this, because there's so much overlap. There's almost never a Situation move that doesn't also move the Character. And, as I said, I don't follow what a Setting move would even entail that doesn't require a Situation move. This is why I argue that there's no real use in trying to establish different categories of agency -- at the end of the day all of this boils down to the simple question "was I able to make a meaningful choice and enforce it's consequences?" I've got a bit more to say on this formulation of agency, but I'll save it for the end. Your framework here looks like it's trying to split hairs to develop another partially useful framework that ultimately results in more arguments than clarity (sorry for the frankness).
Alright, to start, I'm going to
link back to the Spout Lore breakdown. That works through some of the above so you can comment on that if you'd like.
As far as "is it possible to not pick up the Character Game Piece (and again, this includes the
here and
now provisos) when you pick up the Situation or Setting Game Piece", I would say (a) its not terribly common and (b) some cases for it will be more tenuous than others.
Here are a few cases that I'm confident in.
* FitD
Flashbacks always violate the
now proviso and often violate the
here proviso of Character. So those are always grabbing the Situation Game Piece and sometimes grabbing the Setting Game Piece (more on that below).
*
Khan of Khans (Barbarian move in DW) -
Your hirelings always accept the gratuitous fulfillment of one of your appetites as payment. That is a PC build move that, once taken, forevermore changes the Setting. And, because of it, there will be Situation ramifications. It is sort of like the GM asking a question and using the answer; "Does your porter Duvalle relish your destroying of the King's minstrel's lyre when he serenaded the throne room with a song of his master's conquests (Pure Destruction or Power over Others as Appetites)...or is he still going to need that Coin you owe him?"
*
Plan of Action (Dashing Hero move in DW) - 4e has a move just like this. There is always a rope, chandelier, window, cart, easily spooked-herd of livestock, tapestry to be cut, rug to be pulled, ale soaked floor, bannister (any fitting piece of terrain or environmental hazard) whenever it would be handy for you to have one in a situation. This is clearly picking up the Situation Game Piece.
*
Faction Clocks for Gangs at War after Crew Has Initiated it via Deception (or other) Score - So, the Score itself would involve all the manipulation of Game Pieces relative to its handling. But, after its been set in motion (unless the PCs commit to a Score or a Downtime Activity to help one side or the other...or both...keeping them perpetually At War has big advantage), the actual Fortune Rolls to resolve the Faction Clocks for the war as it unfolds will just be the Setting Game Piece.
*
A Lover in Every Port in DW - You tell the table if there is an old flame in this new town...then we roll to find out if they're helpful/complicated/harmful. This is grabbing the Setting and Situation Game Pieces.
Then there is the next layer where the manifestation of the move is less strongly through Character (but its there) and much more strongly directly with Setting or Situation (or both). Things like
The initial part of the first iteration of Come and Get It in 4e (Your enemies respond to your exhortations/feints without fail),
Through Death's Eyes in DW and Visions of Death in AW (are you channeling Death...are you dictating to Death to decide who lives and who dies?),
Thief's Escape Route/Connections in DW, Circles in BW/TB, Streetwise and Secrets of the City (and the like) in 4e - Is there a way out of this difficult situation and are you capable of taking it (and at what cost), do you have available friends/allies capable of changing the situation?
There are plenty more, but those are the ones that come to mind as good expressions of the idea. There is enough meaningful difference between these things (in terms of Character, Setting, Situation) that when designing them or discussing them, the reality of the player's orientation to them and relative potency of those differences are important to delineate (qualitatively).
Thoughts (anyone)?
To touch on your Protagonism, Tactical, and Strategic ideas, I still find these not coherent with each other. Protagonism talks to why you do a thing -- who does it serve? But both Tactical and Strategic point to when or how long a consequence of a choice operates. "I stab the orc" is pretty tactical -- it's now, solving an immediate problem. The Strategic problem would be more "what am I doing to eliminate the orc menace from X village?" It's a long term consequence that shapes multiple scenes or sessions of play. But, any student of war will tell you that Strategy is Tactics writ large, so this is a scales difference rather than a kind difference -- they're the same thing at different scales. Protagonism, though is different beast altogether -- it's not concerned with scale, but about what motivates play or what play is about, and saying that I'm going to make play about my character. This doesn't contrast at all with Tactical or Strategic, but is orthogonal to them. Having orthogonal categories is not a useful way to organize analysis. Also, there's a lack of a counterpoint to Protagonism -- what am I doing when I'm not engaged in Protagonism play? So, yeah, not at all feeling this breakdown, just on the merits of it alone and disregarding my issues with the idea that the breakdown into categories is useful.
Starting with the bolded. This is hugely important. I want to make it clear that in both bins, these things are intended to (a) share aspects of nature (be kindred in a meaningful way...and have overlap on a Venn Diagram), (b) have some level of situational interdependence that you can evaluate (for its presence and potency), but (c) when that interdependence isn't present, be evaluate what degrees of freedom are involved and what they mean for design and play.
That (a) through (c) isn't an accident. That was intentional.
I responded to
@pemerton above about my aims with this. One of the BIG ones is exactly what you're talking about above in the bold.
The independence of Protagonism and Tactical and/or Strategic Agency is a real thing. And I'd like us to recognize it and discuss it. FURTHER, I'd like to discuss the other thing I wrote in that response to pemerton. I'm just going to c/p it:
When the design around these 3 (P, T, S Agency) is not robust (but it aims and/or alleges to be) and the play becomes unwieldy, it gives rise to Force manifesting in play as a participant (typically a GM) arrests 1 or 2 of those so that the third can be prioritized and survive that "contact with the enemy." This paradigm shows that there is an actual apex priority in play and that, when push comes to shove (because system hasn't been able to maintain equilibrium and its offloaded on the GM to juggle this), it will win out (because the GM expresses their authority to make it so...typically with sleight of hand/illusion to keep up the pretense that all 3 of these things are actually still in equilibrium...when they're absolutely not).
This, in my opinion, is a HUGE issue with D&D and it hasn't been forensically broken out as to how/why this happens. The Forge tried to tackle this with its "incoherency" model, but that didn't do enough work (or at least the right kind) with most people but it
absolutely is a real thing and understanding it would be very good.
Take the following two game realities:
1)
5e Adventure Path:
* Players have whole swaths of Tactical and Strategic Agency.
* Players have absolute zero Protagonist Agency (the game is not formulated around addressing the PCs' dramatic needs...its entirely about the metaplot's or setting's dramatic need - which may be an NPC's dramatic need; eg Strahd).
* When the players Tactical and/or Strategic Agency would negatively impact the script for addressing the metaplot's/setting's dramatic need...it is arrested entirely by the GM (via covert Force - Illusionism).
All told?
No Protagonist Agency for the Players + the apex priority of play is the Protagonist Agency of the metaplot/setting (because when that makes "contact with the enemy" - the Players' Tactical and/or Strategic Agency - one survives...one is subordinated).
2)
My Life With Master (if you're not familiar, think of it as a game of Cthulu where (a) the game is actually about the PC's dramatic need and (b) instead of just characterizing your PC's descent into madness, you actually have an extremely small, but persistent, profile of Tactical and Strategic Agency that will actually affect the end state of the game).
* Players have total Protagonist Agency.
* The footprint of Players' Tactical and Strategic Agency is miniscule (particularly compared to every moment of 5e where GM Force isn't deployed)...BUT...it is never subverted by GM Force.
There are vast differences between (1) and (2) above. Then you get to Blades in the Dark and Torchbearer where all 3 are in extraordinary equilibrium and "play priority warfare (where someone has to exert Force)" never manifests. That is, as much as anything, why I think a matrix like this is helpful.
Or, even if a codified matrix doesn't develop, a better, more clear means to talk about these things.
