A Question Of Agency?

[Guest 85555]

Isn't this just advocating for "Enlightened Despotism" by another name?

No. And again, I think comparing what is essentially a referee to a despot fails to understand what a despot is and what a referee is

 

[Guest 85555]

Even in total Monarchies and Dictatorships people make meaningful choices and thus they have agency. Being a subject to a King doesn't take away your agency. You still have meaningful choices to make.

I just don't t think the monarch comparison is useful. It is a role in a game. And anyone in the room can assume that a role and offer to run a campaign (I have been in many groups with rotating GMs----personally I prefer this because I think it helps avoid GM burnout, exposes everyone to different GM styles, and its always good to move from player role to GM role and not just stick to one IMO). It also requires that people agree to let you be the GM, and people are free to walk away from the game at any time, or to object to things you say or do. It isn't oppression to be a player in a game where the GM has traditional GM authority. If you don't like it that is fine. But it is an odd way to persuade people to play other kinds of games. It would be like me trying to say a more spread out approach is communism or something (to be clear I don't think that at all). I wouldn't invoke something that powerful to win at a debate about games.

 

[Aldarc]

It's a game, mate. No one is there against their will, the whole analogy is pointless.

The peasants can leave the country if they wish.

No. And again, I think comparing what is essentially a referee to a despot fails to understand what a despot is and what a referee is

I disagree.

 

[Guest 85555]

The peasants can leave the country if they wish.


I disagree.

Well if you just think we are basically being tyrants, I don't see how this conversation is going to go anywhere good

 

[prabe]

Technically, if it affects anything on a character sheet, in BW, it requires a roll. Likewise, if it requires a PC believe or disbelieve something, it also requires a roll. That's a quirk of BW/BE/MG because it's part of how Luke Crane has solved the problem of the charismatic player with the non-charismatic character using player abilities to dominate the story. Burning Wheel has a specific mechanical limit on RP power over the game. It's unusual in doing to the way it does. It's not unique, but it is rare. Vincent Baker has similar mechanics in some of his games...

Yeah. I've skimmed the Hub and Spokes, once. I don't claim any real knowledge of Burning Wheel or its systems. It seems to be coming from a specific angle with a specific point of view and specific goals, and I suspect I'd either need to play it or read more. At a minimum, it seems to operate at a different scale than I'm used to (which isn't intended as a negative).

 

[Fenris-77]

Comparing a traditional GM level of authority to a dictator doesn't seem helpful either to our ongoing topic, no.

 

[Campbell]

@Bedrockgames

I just have no real idea how to square the circle here. I just do not see on a fundamental level how the activity you are talking is a game subject to any analysis based on game design principles. This is not meant to be an accusation. It's so far removed from my experience of gameplay (in the general sense) I have no real idea how to bridge the gap. It's also worlds apart from my understanding of Finch's Primer, Moldvay B/X, or the Principia Apocrypha. It's even fairly removed from the instructions in Stars Without Number.

Maybe I am missing something here, but it does not seem like there is any real objective to your play or meaningful feedback loops. Please tell me if I am wrong.

 

[Aldarc]

I just don't t think the monarch comparison is useful. It is a role in a game. And anyone in the room can assume that a role and offer to run a campaign (I have been in many groups with rotating GMs----personally I prefer this because I think it helps avoid GM burnout, exposes everyone to different GM styles, and its always good to move from player role to GM role and not just stick to one IMO). It also requires that people agree to let you be the GM, and people are free to walk away from the game at any time, or to object to things you say or do. It isn't oppression to be a player in a game where the GM has traditional GM authority. If you don't like it that is fine. But it is an odd way to persuade people to play other kinds of games. It would be like me trying to say a more spread out approach is communism or something (to be clear I don't think that at all). I wouldn't invoke something that powerful to win at a debate about games.

This clarification helps as earlier someone compared the GM's role and player agency in terms of peasants under a monarch or dictator.

 

[Guest 85555]

@Bedrockgames

I just have no real idea how to square the circle here. I just do not see on a fundamental level how the activity you are talking is a game subject to any analysis based on game design principles. This is not meant to be an accusation. It's so far removed from my experience of gameplay (in the general sense) I have no real idea how to bridge the gap. It's also worlds apart from my understanding of Finch's Primer, Moldvay B/X, or the Principia Apocrypha. It's even fairly removed from the instructions in Stars Without Number.

Maybe I am missing something here, but it does not seem like there is any real objective to your play or meaningful feedback loops. Please tell me if I am wrong.

I don't' know what to tell you. I think Rob got a lot of what I was trying to get at. I enjoy Moldvay, I like Stars without Numbers, but those are are not the end all be all either in terms of conceptions of play (though I do think Stars without Numbers has a great GM section). There may be a fundamental communication issue. I would never use language like feedback loop in talking about the kind of play I do (not saying feedback loops are absent, the language here seems kind of alien to me). To me the point is to bring worlds and genres to life, to give players a sense of being there, and to give them a sense of being autonomous in the setting, not railroaded by what the GM wants. What this leads to, I think, is the ability to have characters who live out meaningful lives in the setting (and not in a simulationist sense, perhaps more in the sense of an ongoing television series, that can span generations). I think it is an approach that might draw from genres but often feels more like history or a saga. When I was running my very long wuxia campaigns for example (at the moment I am running shorter ones due to what I am working on) I was very much thinking of things like the Condor Heroes trilogy, where you start with one set of characters, and then move to the next generation, then the next, in a world that is changing but also retains many of the same pillars (it is set against the Mongolian Invasion of China and deals with the martial heroes and sects working with and fighting against that invasion). So my focus was a campaign where you had this evolving martial landscape

That said I do work with design principles in mind. But I don't think they are the sort of design principles that would have much currency with many of the posters here. I am not much of an RPG theorist. My focus is always on what works at the table.

 

[Fenris-77]

You don't have to be an RPG theorist to run a game, however, a lot of that material is really helpful when it comes to looking under the hood and comparing X to Y, a project which requires a certain amount of lingo in order to create a common frame of reference.