A Question Of Agency?

[Bedrockgames]

We get it. I think by this point we are super gosh darn aware that there are people out there for whom this wouldn't be a problem, like your father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate, especially when you repeatedly use normative language like "norm" and "traditional." Give us a little more credit here and stop treating us as idiots who don't get your point just because we may not agree with it.

Then I don't understand why there is constant argument over my posts. I am really not getting the reaction here. And I am not treating anyone like idiots. I am going to great lengths to explain my position, including linking to and quoting large sections of text from games I have written so people can understand the point of view I am trying to convey (and the latter is something I generally don't like doing in contentious threads, so I am trying to show good faith by transparently sharing gaming material).

 

[Bedrockgames]

You are framing this as a matter of whether we believe you or not. I don't think that's the appropriate framing here for the pushback your are receiving.

I was literally responding to a poster who said he doesn't believe me. Not only that, he said he doesn't believe that I believe what I am saying. How else am I suppose to frame it?

 

[Bedrockgames]

Okay? But everyone obviously does not share your sentiments, and those people would like you to understand why it invalidates their sense of play. Capeesh?

How is what I do at my table and how I conceive of agency invalidating what they do (especially when I have said repeatedly, if you want to do that, by all means do so----I even told Pemerton I don't think he'd enjoy the kinds of games I am playing). Read through my posts again, you will see I am acknowledging other ways to play. All I am doing is saying in a sandbox, having the brother die would be totally valid and wouldn't be a violation of agency. That is all. In a PbtA game run by permerton, that might be a violation of agency. In which case, don't do that in a PbtA game run by permerton. Play how you want. Heck I've even said there are games where I would do exactly what Pemerton is advocating (like the Savage Worlds campaign). My points are strictly about a style of sandbox that is trying to maximize the sense of agency I am discussing.

 

[Bedrockgames]

Anyways, getting back to agency. I think it might be fair to say that what I mean by agency is a subset of agency as defined by the other sides terms. Anyone want to take a crack at defining what Bedrock and I mean by agency using your terms?

Call it sandbox agency

 

[FrogReaver]

It's what is likely to arise in your sandbox games. You have repeated many times that there are different varieties of sandbox games out there, but then you fallback to generalized language that makes it sound like your preferences or tendencies are universal ones for running sandboxes. But that's clearly not the case. There are people in this thread who likewise run sandbox games who have been pushing back against what you have been saying or how you run them. So maybe not act like it's universal or one true way to run a sandbox.

It's weird that's the sense you get from his comments. Because I find he's been very clear that there are other ways of running sandboxes out there.

We get it. I think by this point we are super gosh darn aware that there are people out there for whom this wouldn't be a problem, like your father's brother's nephew's cousin's former roommate, especially when you repeatedly use normative language like "norm" and "traditional." Give us a little more credit here and stop treating us as idiots who don't get your point just because we may not agree with it.

Which part specifically do you disagree with? That sandboxes can run that way? That running them that way doesn't make one a dick or bad DM? That in his communities that is the norm for running a sandbox? I'd love to know.

You are framing this as a matter of whether we believe you or not. I don't think that's the appropriate framing here for the pushback your are receiving.

From my perspective, He's telling you that some sandbox games are ran this way and you are essentially saying, "i disagree because I don't like that way of running them".

Okay? But everyone obviously does not share your sentiments, and those people would like you to understand why it invalidates their sense of play. Capeesh?

Can I use this line when I'm trying to explain why the kind of agency you care about invalidates the kind I care about?

 

[FrogReaver]

Call it sandbox agency

I think your definition of agency goes beyond sandboxes to some degree.

 

[FrogReaver]

How is what I do at my table and how I conceive of agency invalidating what they do (especially when I have said repeatedly, if you want to do that, by all means do so----I even told Pemerton I don't think he'd enjoy the kinds of games I am playing). Read through my posts again, you will see I am acknowledging other ways to play. All I am doing is saying in a sandbox, having the brother die would be totally valid and wouldn't be a violation of agency. That is all. In a PbtA game run by permerton, that might be a violation of agency. In which case, don't do that in a PbtA game run by permerton. Play how you want. Heck I've even said there are games where I would do exactly what Pemerton is advocating (like the Savage Worlds campaign). My points are strictly about a style of sandbox that is trying to maximize the sense of agency I am discussing.

I think some of the issue is that Pbta and other games may be considered a style of sandbox by them, where you probably wouldn't consider them sandboxes at all. I understand you to be talking about traditional (no one ever did come up with a better term) living world style sandboxes.

I think you made fairly clear you were going to use your language and terms to describe things - so if you don't define their games as sandboxes then referring to your games as sandboxes and there's as not sandboxes makes sense.

 

[FrogReaver]

I believe that character autonomy was offered earlier in the thread. It seems accurate to me.

But Autonomy has nothing to do with being able to change important things in the fiction...

So I think your autonomy only covers part of what we mean by agency.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think some of the issue is that Pbta and other games may be considered a style of sandbox by them, where you probably wouldn't consider them sandboxes at all. I understand you to be talking about traditional (no one ever did come up with a better term) living world style sandboxes.

I think you made fairly clear you were going to use your language and terms to describe things - so if you don't define their games as sandboxes then referring to your games as sandboxes and there's as not sandboxes makes sense.

Not at all. I am happy to expand the meaning of sandbox. I did it myself with Drama+Sandbox. I think sandboxes often get a reputation for being hard to run, and not everyone's cup of tea. So any effort to expand interest, is cool. If people have a variant approach that still feels sandboxy but works for gamers for whom pure sandboxes haven't been great fun, I say go for it and call it a sandbox. I would definitely say make distinctions though because without them these labels become meaningful and fall into disuse. So call it what you want (A Sandbox World, or a World Sandbox, new school sandbox, philosophical sandbox, protagonist sandbox, or whatever language detones the area of the hobby you feel you belong to). But when I've been saying sandbox on its own, I've generally meant a traditional sandbox.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think some of the issue is that Pbta and other games may be considered a style of sandbox by them, where you probably wouldn't consider them sandboxes at all. I understand you to be talking about traditional (no one ever did come up with a better term) living world style sandboxes.

I started noticing PbTA players taking an interest in OSR style gaming a few years ago talking to people at Story-games.com (I posted there when it was active). I thought that was cool. I sometimes disagreed with posters about what OSR stuff meant, because we were coming from different paths and points of view. But I think it is great for people to have open engagement over styles. One of the reasons I used to post there in fact, was because I got push back, and sometimes push back is helpful if your ideas are being formed in a room of people who all agree with you. I will say though, I did notice people at that site had wildly different ideas from me about what the OSR meant, or what some of its principles meant or were.