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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8143700" data-attributes="member: 16814">I haven't been able to participate much, but I've kept up with the thread.  I think there's a weird shift going on.   There's a lot of perceived persecution for play approaches that isn't present in the thread.  I tried earlier to make the clear statement that player agency is not an automatic good, just a preference that people use to value games and that is a useful consideration when analyzing how we play games.  Being aware of relative agency in games isn't in itself a value statement, but rather should be looked at as a trade-off -- are you sacrificing agency for a purpose, and is that purpose working for you.  If the answer is yes and yes, then concern over the fact your approach has less agency than another than doesn't answer those questions in the affirmative should be excised.I think it's obvious that if the primary mechanic in your games is that Bob decides what happens, then players have less agency that if the mechanics say you have some chance X that you can decide what happens and otherwise Bob decides.  Whether or not that difference in agency matters to you is absolutely personal.  Perhaps Bob does a great job making decisions on what happens that entertain you.  Perhaps you don't want the pressure of even occasionally deciding what happens (and it's definitely pressure).  Or, maybe, you find you don't like giving Bob the power to decide what happens.  That's fine too.  But it shouldn't be a point of contention that Bob decides results in less agency that any system that shares some decision making with the player.</blockquote>

Verification