Search results

Note that in both cases the players are a passive audience. All the creative decisions are made by someone else. In a theme park you can choose which rides to engage with, and to an extent how you engage with them, but you can only choose from the rides that are there.

It's something that some people value more than others. Some people trade off a degree of agency for what they feel is a greater degree of setting coherency/verisimiliitude. Why can't we discuss that trade-off? Why can't we talk about how different techniques or approaches create more player...

None of this requires a GM's thumb on the scale. It can all be done with open and principled resolution. You will probably be familiar with the Campaign Sourcebook and Catacomb Guide from AD&D second edition (which is a great book). There's a whole section in there that (from memory) is all...

But this is what I said before. You are petitioning an authority figure so you gain a special exemption. 'Please sir, do not apply any tariffs to my business at this time'. That isn't a high amount of agency, even if the authority figure says yes. I'm not sure what about your play example...

I think there is a code here though. 'What would make sense based on the fiction' and 'fictional coherence' are both different ways of saying 'what the GM thinks should happen'. Putting the GM in a position of privileged authorship over the setting is a perfectly legitimate way to play. People...

This is amoral

I think the question here is 'who decides?'. If your agency depends on petitioning an authority figure for a special exemption, that doesn't feel much like agency to me. If there are situations where the rules as written somehow don't suit the situation at hand (and I'm not at all sure your...

There must be a process by which the outcome of contested or uncertain actions is decided. If that process is 'apply these clear and inviolable rules, known and agreed to in advance, to determine the outcome' I have more agency than if the process is 'the game's narrator decides the outcome...

Rule 1 of 1: 'When a player wants their character to do something, flip a coin. Heads it works, tails it doesn't'. You are very welcome.

Great post, thank you.

I wasn't talking about creative agenda in a GNS sense, just agenda as is commonly understood. What's the point of play? What are we as a group of people seeking to do? It seems to me that you are unable to describe how you play beyond woolly platitudes that describe everyone's play, or...

I definitely find it interesting how 'I am impartially determining the natural consequence of your actions in a living breathing world' play always ultimately results in 'an adventure happens'. It's never 'you search for two months but nothing's there' or 'you die of dyssentry'.

'Play to learn the contents of the GM's notes', stuff like that?

To me this doesn't mean anything. You don't roleplay in combat? What is meant by roleplaying, what agenda does it pursue, what techniques does it use? Why does player background matter? I realise on this last one that you must mean character background. But again the 'natural language' you use...

I can't follow this thread without being reminded of my favourite band:

Westworld

I guess 'play to find out' is really about the GM. In a heavily story-before game, the main beats are known to the GM in advance, but probably not to the players. In heavily story-now play, no-one knows the beats in advance.

Obviously. But I think it's more likely to lead to quality and innovation than some milquetoast 'give them what we think they like' approach.

'Making a profit is innovation, art or design are not'