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: 8147933" data-attributes="member: 16814">Huh?  This is utterly baffling.  The definition of agency doesn't require anything at all.  This is like saying that the definition of speed requires that everything be a racetrack.  It's a strawman -- you're attacking the definition being used by claiming that it requires maximization, when this is belied even in the very post of mine you quoted (and repeatedly elsewhere in this thread by many).If we're looking at agency being the ability of the player to direct play via the game, then we can very easily note that a game that has one person as the final authority on all thing has less agency for the other players than a game that constrains that authority and allows for players to direct play in some or many situations.  This doesn't require open-ended sandboxes, where, if we're going with the usual assumptions of a sandbox, is still about exploring the GM's conception of the world but with less direction from the GM.  That's more of a middle position from an AP or 2e-style play than more towards the other end of the scale where players have say on even more facets of play.  But, none of this implies that agency alone indicates anything.  It's a heuristic that can be valuable to evaluation what you may or may not like.  It's also a valuable tool for analyzing games -- what's traded off to be gained with a lack of agency.  I think it's absolutely clear that agency is important, elsewise there'd be strong argument for rigid railroads.  Rigid railroads can allow for all of the side arguments about acting out characterizations, about attention to and level of detail, about persistence, etc.  And, yet, these aren't being made and a number of posters arguing against the use of agency as a heuristic have said that they don't prefer rigid railroads.  So, clearly, agency of this definition is used as a heuristic by them, they just have a different stopping point from others.As someone that enjoys GMing both FitD games and 5e, I clearly see that 5e has less agency.  Why, then, might I still enjoy both?  Because agency isn't the only heuristic I use.  5e has less player agency than Blades -- absolutely and without doubt.  But it does have the tactical combat minigame and the charop minigame that is also fun.  I don't run (or play, rarely) 5e in "pawn" stance -- players have a lot of input into what's important and my group all enjoys acting with funny voices and using first person and being advocates for our characters.  But, as has been stated above, you can do all of those things and still do charop and enjoy the tactical challenge of combat.  So, I also run 5e, and it's not an open-end sandbox, because agency doesn't require it nor is it the only consideration.</blockquote>

Verification