Search results

But prior to that moment, you wouldn’t have known the outcome…. Seems like learning to me, but whatever. We’re going in circles. You don’t like it, and that’s fine.

Not at all. It’s about the player and their choices in the game. In BW, the idea is for these things to be tested. That the dice may constrain what we can do. It’s a decision made knowingly, and it uses a set procedure that is known by the player. There are consequences in play beyond hit...

It depends on the context. If the loss of control of character is a known possibility of play, and the player is aware of this and makes decisions accordingly, then it’s a negative consequence of play. Has the player lost full control of the character? Yes. Does this mean the player has no...

Because I think it matters to you as a preference, but doesn’t matter as pertaining to your description. In both cases, you’re still finding something out. That there are differences that we can see in the two things doesn’t mean that there aren’t also similarities. So your description seems...

I see a difference, I just don’t think it matters. I understand that you and others have strong feelings about rules that remove your ability to control your character and/or your character’s thoughts and feelings. I don’t blame anyone who feels that way. But that doesn’t mean that games...

How do you find out if your character dies in D&D? How do you find out if you locate a secret door? Because of a dice roll. Saying that you don't find out about a character if their emotional or mental state is determined by a die roll seems to contradict the idea that you can find anything...

Oh, I have no issue with you breaking down agency into different types like this if you want to examine them individually or what have you. My point has only been that they still fall under the category of player agency. And I think claiming that a game that only allows one type allows more...

Player agency is what it is. It doesn't change based on the game you play. What form the agency takes and how it works within the scope of the given game may be different... like, me dribbling and shooting in basketball is a different thing than moving my knight in chess... but they are both...

Sorry, let me clarify. Both are subsets of "player agency" as both are ways in which a player may influence the game. I don't know what you're on about. If the living portion of the world still happens, then something like what I've described should spring up. I don't really understand the...

One is a subset of the other. I’m not sure what this means. I play and run a variety of games, and I’m applying the idea of agency consistently to them all. I’m not changing agency for my Spire campaign from how I view it for my Mothership campaign. Ha okay. I don’t know who the “we” is...

I’m not the one that has a “different usage”. I’m using agency the way it works for everything else. As for RPGs being games… I don’t think that’s a point of debate. They are clearly games. There seems to be some debate about whether they should be viewed as such for the purposes of agency…...

I don’t know if we fundamentally agree… but if it helps for you to look at it this way, sure.

Sure. And I've explained my reasoning. I've shown how agency works for players in other games, and then applied that same reasoning for RPGs. When viewed that way, it's pretty easy to see. It's only when we either reject the idea that RPGs are games, or that they cannot be looked at as games...

I mean, I don't know if we can break it all down to such specific instances like that... but assuming we could, sure, this may be the case. I'm not declaring "absolute truth", I'm declaring what I believe is true and why... which is based on the actual definition of agency.

Take it easy, sport. People can hide rolls if they want to because of some minor crossing of the character/player barrier that a roll with no obvious result provides. I was just offering a way to reconcile that with an in-fiction reason. No, it's not me telling the player what they think. It...

No, I didn't "give" them any information. The example was a failed roll making the player think something more is going on. I said "go ahead and let them think that... call it a hunch".

The example that started this avenue of discussion was about a failed roll to notice a secret door. I'm not saying to tell the players who the culprit of a mystery is. I'm saying that being cautious about such trivial meta-information is just a waste of time.

But isn't the player of BW doing the same thing? They've chosen to have certain traits called into question. Am I brave enough to face my fear? Am I hard enough to kill someone? That kind of thing. If that's what play is meant to be about, and the player knows that the answer can be yes or...

I can see how it may not be to their preference, but I don't really see how it affects their agency. Like, if they have some meta clue... a failed roll with no result that seems like they didn't notice something... they don't have to act on it. If they How so? I'm not following you here. Who...

Who cares if they act on the meta-information? It's just information that's available to them. Let it be a hunch that the character has. Also, if they fail a roll to find a secret door, who cares if they know it... they failed. They're not finding the secret door. Assuming you don't allow...