Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crimson Longinus" data-source="post: 8141133" data-attributes="member: 7025508">You might not be, a lot of people certainly strongly implied.And this is why I really don't agree with the idea, that agency is so easily quantifiable that any increase of the player decision making power will automatically increase the net agency. I think I explained it well enough with my example about 'get out of jail free card' meta currency. And the truth is everyone actually agrees with this in theory. Everyone agrees that the game has to have some limits and making decisions within these limits is what makes those decisions meaningful, thus producing agency. People just do not agree what those limits should be.This is not exactly what I meant, though I am not sure what us knowing that the player's agency was limited gets us. Like so what? What are we using this information for?Talking.RPGs are barely games anyway. Imagine a part of a D&D session where the characters are just talking with each other and some NPCs, exploring a city, perhaps shopping. No dice have been rolled. Did it stop being a game? You can just run entire sessions or campaigns like that. Perhaps ask GM asks some rolls and just sets up the odds based how likely in they think the character is to succeed. In practice it doesn't run significantly differently than a game with somewhat more complex rules. Its really good for horror and drama where the focus is more on atmosphere rather than 'winning'. Keeps the focus on the fiction rather than on the rules.Nah. I just want to pretend to be an elf or somesuch. I want to do things that would be sensible from the POV of my character and I want things that make sense in the fictional context result from those actions. The rules can help to facilitate that but they're just an imperfect simulation engine.</blockquote>

Verification