This is interesting. Suppose the players want to play a traditional style game. They want to explore the world and have it revealed to them by the DM as they go. They want to explore dungeons that they didn't help bring into being. And so on. Wouldn't getting into a game like that give them a lot of say over what the game is about since it chases what the players are interested in?
It seems to me that a traditional player in a game of
@pemerton's style would have little say and it would not chase what that player is interested in, just like traditional play doesn't give Pemerton what he is interested in giving him little say in a game of that style.
Similar to the above, if the player wants to play in a traditional style game, then he is getting his say by having the PC knowledge figured out in traditional manner.
Same as above.
It seems to me that it really is one thing, Playstyle preference. If you are playing a game that runs the style of your preference, you have a lot of say. If you are playing a game that is of the other playstyle, then you don't have a lot of say.
Its really not about preference Max. "Say" is an objective reality that we observe all the time in our daily lives and we onboard it in our relationships. We evaluate it and the implications of it consistently. In some cases, not enough
say will feel like there is insufficient reciprocation. In other cases, too much
say will feel like we're burdened beyond what we're willing to take on. In some cases, a person who has
say beyond their ability to cognitively manage will cause a net loss in efficiency or functionality in whatever endeavor they're taking on. In some other cases, folks thrive when they're forced to take on a considerable burden of
say.
Say is an organizing pillar of social systems both big and small.
You and your partner go on vacation and they choose where you're going, what you're doing, your daily calendar sequence, your hotel, where you eat. They basically have all the
say. Hey, maybe you want that. For some couples, that is the platonic ideal. One person has all the
say and the other is
happily along for the ride. But that doesn't change the reality that one person has
all the say and the other has
no say. Then you can contrast that with a happy medium of say. You come together on where you're going. One person chooses the hotel. Another chooses where you're eating on this day while the other chooses the next day. You trade off choosing activities. Etc, etc. The matrix of
say has changed (and those involved or those observing are certainly aware of this).
Here are two of the most easy and straightforward autobiographical ones I can think of in TTRPGs (which, my guess is that many people have similar anecdotes). It is the very first two that I engaged with in the hobby. When I started running Pawn Stance Dungeon Crawls with Moldvay Basic I was 7. Thrust right into it. I was ok. Certainly not good. Not terrible. Just ok-ish. Some of the dungeons in their totality and some of the dungeon micro-decisions I would design weren't good; like which corridors to choose and which to evade...like how to effectively deploy resources throughout the life of the delve. Sometimes, I wouldn't appropriately (subtly and deftly) telegraph threats or sometimes I wouldn't devise dynamically different gamestate changes if you executed
this decision (or these sets of decisions) vs
that decision (or those sets). Sometimes corridors and/or the navigation of forks were lame and limp. Sometimes the whole crawl just didn't have nearly enough input by the players (because my design of the dungeon wasn't dynamic enough or wasn't executed well enough in the running of it such that their play of it mattered enough). I also didn't quite have enough good understanding of how to theme dungeons (I was a little guy so I would repeat themes as my repository of thematic touchstones wasn't terribly deep). One dungeon would feel incredible and super fun and rewarding in the running of it, in the feel of the navigation of it by the players...another...not so much. I reflected a whole lot, I talked to my buddies a whole lot, and worked at my craft. By probably 9 or so I would reliably put out good dungeons with dynamic decision-points, compelling and divergent strategic throughlines, and diversity in themes.
Players'
say increased as I sucked less in scenario design and in execution of my dungeons because their individual choices mattered more, the frequency of choice mattering increased dramatically, the intersection of choices mattered more (whether that be a sequence or these few big choices being extremely consequential to these other choices some...say...8 decision-points later), and their totality (on a per delve basis) of choices mattered. My own
say (in devising crawls and running them) at 9 years old, in contrast with the 7 year old who started devising dungeons and running them, had increased in proportion to the increase of my technical skill, my cognitive space expansion on multiple axes, and my understanding of genre/theme.
The next thing?
Ok, well I'm devising all of these dungeons with no input from them. This was total proto-play for us. We're little (well, I am...they were like 10-12). I barely know what I'm doing. So its basically just "Dugeon of the Week" stype stuff. No town. No interaction with locals. No menu of dungeons. So that is what changed next. I worked on the fundamentals of getting good at dungeons...once I got good enough at that, I focused on building out a little town as home base that we could free play in. They'd sell their stuff there and then we would free-play the question of "ok what is going to be our next dungeon." This was pretty much all improv. I had some NPCs with names and some stuff that they did in the town. I'd do my best to roleplay them (it sucked...I'm sure...but whatever). But the net change of all of this was that the say the players suddenly had on our "Dungeon of the Week" increased. They would wander town, I'd make up a menu of types of dungeons as we free-played; cave or wizard tower or ruined temple, recover the x or save the y or purge the n, goblins or zombies or giant insects. And I'd make up some lore about a particular trap or puzzle or location/obstacle (etc) in the dungeon.
Then I'd spend the week making a dungeon up based on what had happened in our little town.
That was an increase in player's
say.
Now whether or not people want
say, want an increase in say, want a reduction in say is immaterial to whether or not that increase/reduction/statis of
say exists or not. It would have been totally fine for those kids to say "you know what...this town thing isn't working...can you just hit us with a total surprise "Dungeon of the Week" again?" I would have probably been a little hurt (because I really enjoyed this town phase we were doing and how it put a challenge before me by parameterizing key components of a dungeon to build around...and I thought I was fairly good at doing this!), but if they didn't want to freeplay town and develop the parameters of our next dungeon together...that would be fine. Reduction in
say for them...but totally fine. Alternatively, if, as I improved in dungeon design and in-situ execution and created more dynamic and more dynamically consequential (and therefore certainly more weighty and difficult in terms of demands on players) delve experiences, the players said "you know...this is getting too hard...can we do like what we did earlier...we liked that better," then that would have been fine as well. This particular cohort of little kids didn't though (another group who wanted less
say might have though). Because as their
say increased by proxy of better delve design and scenario execution by me, they progressively enjoyed the experience of play more and more because their frequency of input and the magnitude of their input into the experience of each delve increased.