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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Thomas Shey" data-source="post: 8148042" data-attributes="member: 7026617">But that's the gig here; this all seems simply a matter of degree to me.  Now, I accept that degree matters, but if your agency is the most important thing to you, its hard to see how the police game would be acceptable, given that you have to either build a character who will never do a thing to have him leave the police, or accept that character goes out of play when he does (again, operating on the premise that most people are not going to, effectively, run a separate sub-game for him for the rest of the campaign.  I know that's not universally the case but I have no reason to think its common enough to make it as an assumption).Because its what the game is about.  Otherwise, we're back to the logical conclusion being that the only really acceptable game type is a sandbox (and I've absolutely seen people outright say that).  If the focus on the game is narrow, and you can't stay within that focus while still getting the degree of agency you find necessary, the proper thing to do is not to play in that game but not act like you should have the right to be in it and expect to drag it off completely sideways with your decisions.  That's even true with a player group as a whole (why did you agree to play a game about X if you were going to make it a game about Y?) and its particularly true for an individual player.Well, yes, if the GM is going to run a narrower game, he should absolutely be clear about that, especially if its with a system that normally can be assumed to have a wider scope.  That's a communication breakdown right out the door.And here's why I say that an overly strong focus on agency over everything also sharply narrows the kinds of campaigns permitted.</blockquote>

Verification