The "I Didn't Comment in Another Thread" Thread

Snarf Zagyg said:

Huh.

When I hear Player Agency, I assume it's an agency ... for agents ... of players ... to represent them and negotiate a better deal for the percentage of loot.

See, Thag of the Big Sword has had a great year ... maybe the greatest year. He has led this party in hit points dished out and hit points taken! His advanced numbers are off the charts, too- his Value Over a Replacement Barbarian (VORB) is easily the highest we've seen since Karnak the Unsteady .... and Karnak is a hall of famer. So when Thag is saying that he deserves to get 1/3 of the gold and first pick of the magic items, don't think of what it's costing you ... think of what you're gaining! SHOW ME THE GOLD PIECES!

View attachment 269565

Click to expand...

I'd rather this agent for when that producer is who I am negotiating with.

Snarf Zagyg said:

Look at what you've started, CleverNickName. LOOK AT IT!!!!

Are you proud of yourself?

Click to expand...

Well at least I didn't Comment In Another Thread^TM about it.

Seriously though: the inability for some people to let others peacefully disagree with them is...impressive.

CleverNickName said:

Seriously though: the inability for some people to let others peacefully disagree with them is...impressive.

Click to expand...

Never argue with stupid wrong morons; they will drag you down to their level and beat you with their years of experience.

prabe said:

The problem with every discussion of player agency--every. single. one.--is that people cannot or will not agree on what, exactly, player agency is. Also, every one wants to be the correctest, so they'll argue ad infinitum (or at least ad nauseum) trying to ... I dunno, convince the people who agree with them?

Click to expand...

Let's put aside agency for a moment and talk about the general problem here, there, and everywhere at the moment. You dont need consensus on definition to have a discussion. Ok, so agency has a much stricter definition for you than me, can I put that aside for the moment and continue with the discussion at hand? Seems the answer is no for many folks. That's what we call a position over interests problem.

On the flip side, if somebody just tosses out "agency" to shut down your topic, they just did you a big favor. Now you know they are not worth your time.

Snarf Zagyg said:

Never argue with stupid wrong morons; they will drag you down to their level and beat you with their years of experience.

Click to expand...

It's true. That's why when arguments start, I just hit the eject button.

Player Agency means simply that players have agency for their actions -- i.e., their actions can change the town, nation, or even world. If I'm running a module, and it doesn't matter what the player's do, after Scene 1 they will go to Scene 2, then that's a lack of player agency. It doesn't matter if it's a well-written sequence of scenes, if the players' actions are meaningless in the grand scheme of things, then they have no agency. You might as well be writing or reading a short story. I've run modules where one character absolutely will die, it's written in, and the module has no alternatives for if they survive. I've written scenarios where, once the BBEG is killed, the rest of the dungeon becomes unreachable and the PCs have to flee for their lives.

When someone tells me, "I hate Player Agency," it tells me they already know how they want a scenario to end. They've already written the finale, and if they let the PCs change things, then it won't finish neatly and elegantly like they wanted. Why bother playing at all, then? Play to find out what happens!

payn said:

Let's put aside agency for a moment and talk about the general problem here, there, and everywhere at the moment. You dont need consensus on definition to have a discussion. Ok, so agency has a much stricter definition for you than me, can I put that aside for the moment and continue with the discussion at hand? Seems the answer is no for many folks. That's what we call a position over interests problem.

On the flip side, if somebody just tosses out "agency" to shut down your topic, they just did you a big favor. Now you know they are not worth your time.

Click to expand...

I think if you're discussing a thing, it helps if people can agree what you're discussing. If one of us normally defines something differently, maybe we can agree to use that term for this discussion, with a meaning we agree on for this discussion.

But I agree, just dropping a hot-button term into a discussion isn't likely to help that discussion.

RealAlHazred said:

When someone tells me, "I hate Player Agency," it tells me they already know how they want a scenario to end.

Click to expand...

Achilles: I hate player agency. Just ... absolutely hate it.

Zeno: You can't mean that, Achilles! You really hate player agency? Is that what you hate?

Achilles: You're right, Zeno! I don't hate player agency ... I hate players. Players suck.

Zeno: Wait ... what? You hate players?

Achilles: No. I mean, yes! I hate players, because players are people and I hate people.

Zeno: .... you hate people? All people?

Achilles: Yeah! People listen to Jimmy Buffet and voted for the Nazis, Zeno. Can't trust 'em, can't like 'em. I don't like people. Do you like people, Zeno?

Zeno: .....I don't like you, Achilles.

prabe said:

I think if you're discussing a thing, it helps if people can agree what you're discussing. If one of us normally defines something differently, maybe we can agree to use that term for this discussion, with a meaning we agree on for this discussion.

Click to expand...

Sometimes you gotta give to have the discussion. Some folks believe that sandbox means West Marches by default. I know from experience that is not the case. However, if somebody wants to use it that way to have a nuanced discussion on a tangentially related topic, I'll play along in interest of the discussion. If defining the term is the discussion, than by all means pick a hill to die on.

prabe said:

But I agree, just dropping a hot-button term into a discussion isn't likely to help that discussion.

Click to expand...

It never does, but some folks cant help themselves.

Maybe an example would help?

In Hoard of the Dragon Queen, the first 5E hardcover adventure (and not a particularly good one), the players approach the town of Greenest at the beginning of the scenario. They spot a young green dragon flying overhead. They then go to Greenest to help the defense of the town against the attack of the Cult of the Dragon.

But they're 1st level characters. You've just teased a dragon. If they are rules-lawyer types they know the dragon is far, far more potent than 1st level characters; the lowest draconic Challenge Rating is 4 or 5, if I recall correctly. If they are roleplayers invested in their characters, they know dragons are the most powerful monsters in the Forgotten Realms; they hear stories of heroes contending with dragons... and losing! But the module has no real options for if the PCs decide not to go to Greenest. The advice given is along the lines of forcing them to go to Greenest. Because if they don't the rest of the module doesn't happen.

And that's just... that's just really terrible adventure writing. "It doesn't matter what you yourself think your character would do, the module author will tell you what your character is going to do." What? Why bother going through the rest of the scenario to the final fight? (Where it is heavily stacked against the PCs and designed so that one character will die heroically. What? What if nobody is that flavor of heroic? Not considered in the module. Someone has to die. If the PCs can't make up their minds, the BBEG will pick someone based on these criteria...)

That's basically anti-Player Agency.