Really? That how my point is going to be dismissed? Because I choose to deal with the issue being raised in this thread by having the group talk about and more importantly establishing an atmosphere where everybody feel comfortable pitching in.
Um, I specifically talked to why I disagreed, which is not dismissal, it's engagement. I'm sorry if you feel attacked, that's not at all my intent. I'm being 100% honest when I say that you appear to run a fun game for your players that they seem to enjoy (seem only standing in for the fact that I don't know them or you, and can only judge from appearances). And, to me, that's the only goal of a game -- did you have fun?
This thread, though, is talking about how games work, and doing so in a way that's broader than any one specific game, although we're using examples to showcase differences. Your providing of your play was fantastic -- thank you very much! It's a great way to look at how your approach functions within the discussion of agency. It's a pretty straightforward approach -- a tweaked version of an approach that's been around for awhile -- and you clearly love it and enjoy it, so it's absolutely the right approach for you and your table. It's a lower agency that some other games, and higher than others. This thread is about looking at relative agency, the sidelines about definitions aside -- those are mostly trying to establish a framework where the definition of agency means that games people play cannot be said to have less agency that other games, an objective I don't understand at all. And I don't understand it because I love playing games that I can say, without reservation, feature less agency than other games. I also enjoy games that feature more than others. It's not a value statement.
Definitions and philosophy aside let's talk specifics. In your mind what I or any other participant are able to do that my take doesn't offer? What agency they have?
For example under my approach,
Player A: "Hey wouldn't be cool to have a campaign where everybody is part of a temple?"
Me: "Yeah that sound cool. Everybody good with that"
Group: "Yeah that sound fun."
Me (to Player A): "Do you have any ideas on what kind of religion the temple is part of?"
Player A (and Group): Have a discussion about which religion I have in my setting would be fun to roleplay. Settles on the Goddess of Justice.
Me (to Group): "OK here the material I have currently on Delaquain. It a bit thin in these area especially on temple life. If you have any ideas this a good time pitch them."
Player A and C: "We have some idea, we will work on it over the week and get with the group to see if it works out."
Me and the Group: "Sounds good"
Following that we hash out those details and then the players generates characters and their background. I answer any questions they may have. I in turn will generate the specifics of life around the temple incorporating the details the player come up with along with my own ideas. Then after the backgrounds are done, I incorporate those details.
Then the next session we start playing and I describe the initial circumstance and we go from there using the process I described in earlier
posts on this thread. Incorporating feedback from the players and the group along the way.
The "product" of doing things this way is some background on the setting, background on main locale the temple, background on the religion, and each of the character background which will have elements involving temple and religion and elements that involve the larger setting.
Contrast this with an example of the other approaches you talk about. If it helps it doesn't have to involve character centered around a temple.
And, that looks grand for the approach you're taking, but you're talking about letting players choose parts of the setting prior to play, or at specific points in play where such is allowed. After this, though, it's your evaluation of this. A game like Blades in the Dark is fundamentally a different beast. To give a quick example, the main part of the over-arching play loop is the Score. The Score is the part of the game where the players' characters engage in a heist or similar style operation. The players select the target of the Score -- whoever they want, although usually this serves a purpose, and the goal of the score. They then select an approach -- Stealth, Assault, Con, Smuggle, etc -- that best describes the general way they want the score to be done. Then they pick a detail -- each approach has a required detail. For example, Stealth has the required detail of point of entry -- where do you sneak in? Okay, so, NONE of this is up to the GM. The GM cannot refute or say no to any of this, including the detail of entry -- the players literally get to state a fact about the target of the score that is true. What the GM does get to do is run through this and discuss it with the players to determine if the plan is simple or complicated, if it targets a strength or weakness of the target, and if the Crew has anything that aids their approach. These all earn or lose dice from the Engagement roll, which is a special role that determines how the Score starts -- a good roll might have the PCs be well into the Score before encountering trouble, a poor one has issues cropping up immediately.
This is a lot of agency for the players that's almost completely unmediated by the GM. The playloop in the Score also has a lot going on for the PCs, and I've described this recently since you've been in the thread in response to
@FrogReaver. This is, I'm almost positive, nothing like your play approach. There's a lack of specificity until needed for instance.
Another good example in Blades is the use of the Flashback mechanic, where players can pause the action and engage in a pre-scene where they set up something that will be useful in the current moment. This costs some resource, but also doesn't look like your play and offers quite a bit of agency over a situation.
If I wasn't clear I get that. The issue I have is that traditional roleplaying have less agency when it comes to actual play. That the point I am disputing. To be clear, my contention both have it, it achieved in different ways. That the way the games you mentioned handle work better for a sizeable segment of our hobby. Enough that it now it own niche. That both are subject to the vagaries of small group dynamics. To points like "fairness", "impartiality", "sportsmanship", etc are equal important to both. Finally that system can't fix this.
System absolutely can address this, and fairness, impartiality, and sportsmanship are utterly unnecessary. I'm not any of those when I run Blades -- I cannot be, because I'm 1) supposed to be a fan of the PCs and 2) I'm suppose to drench them in adversity. These aren't competing either! We're a fan of John McClane in Die Hard, but we certainly don't want to watch him have a relaxing evening without terrorists. Instead, we're a fan because we love watching how he deals with the adversity of being trapped in a tower with terrorists, and how he succeeds! This is the kind of "being a fan" and "adversity" that I'm talking about, and it has nothing to do with "fairness" at all.
Now, when I run 5e, I definitely consider these things, because that system is built on these concepts and works that way.
System most definitely matters. Claiming otherwise shows a lack of experience outside of a narrow set of systems.
But to resolve this debate we are at the point where we need to talk specifics. What people do in actual situations. Then we look at their behavior and see how it work with my thesis or yours.
And that's what I'm doing.
I disagree that my approach is the baseline. I get a lot of pushback on many of my points on sandbox play from traditional roleplayers. The baseline is the use of the tournament style adventure. It gotten better but the general expectation still appears to be that it is polite to stick to the adventure that the referee has chosen. Time and time again, I have to tell players do what your character would do, don't worry about what I have prepared. Sounds like I am not the only one that needs to get up to speed.
Oh, my, I haven't ever met anyone that thinks that tournament modules are a baseline for anything other than tournament modules. Those are aimed at eliciting a very specific type of play -- asynchronous competitive play. I don't know any tables that look for this as a baseline for home play at all. I'm afraid that we've been exposed to violently different sets of players.
Is real life is limiting because we are bounded by the laws of physics? Yet people seemly achieve many things despite that.
Yes, it is, but there are no laws of physics in the game, only the GM's ideas about laws of physics. Comparing real life to games is silly.
