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: 8148108" data-attributes="member: 16814">I'm sorry, perhaps I'm dense.  What requires this?  I mean, I know the definition, I'm using it, and I absolutely disagree that it requires anything at all.  It seems like you're substituting "MAXIMIZED AGENCY" in and using that as "definition" when no one but you is making this argument. As far as saying "what the campaign is actually about" this clearly indicates that your baseline is that the campaign is about something the GM's chosen.  This is arguing from the position that the GM should trump any player input in this regard, which clearly reduces player agency.  Is this a bad thing?  As someone that runs 5e with this very understanding backed into the game, I don't think it's a bad thing.  Someone else might not like it though, and then the fact that 5e has less player agency baked it would inform their decision to play a different game.  No harm in that.I don't know what your hypothetical player thinks.  It's pretty obvious, though, that if the player can make that choice they have more agency than if they cannot.  Whether or not that's valuable to you or the player isn't answered by this observation, but instead by your individual preferences.  I absolutely think your asserting that it's either the GM has final authority to nix sidetracks OR it's a sandbox (which, again, is a fraught term) is a false dichotomy.  I mean, Blades in the Dark has more agency than 5e because the players have some abilities to direct play without seeking the GM's approval, but it's still bounded by themes -- you're going to be a criminal in a gang operating in a haunted city.  So, we have a situation where players are locked into the themes of the game and yet still have concrete abilities to direct play without GM approval.  This is more agency that 5e has (5e's core mechanic is GM decides) and yet doesn't require your claim be true.I think that if you stopped looking for ways to discredit the definition because you don't want to accept that your play has less agency than some other kinds of play, you'd be on a stronger footing.  The real question isn't about how much agency there is -- this is just observational -- it's why you've chosen the level of agency you like and what you get for choosing that.  As, again, a 5e GM I clearly choose to play a game with less agency than other games I like and can run.  I do this because there's a tradeoff in what I get -- 5e allows for other mechanics I like that don't really sit as well with more open agency games and I run a pretty fun game even as benevolent dictator so my friends trust the game will be fun and enjoy playing.  That's it -- I can accept a lower player agency because the trade-off is worth it to me.  Because, and I seem to not be able to say this enough, amount of agency is not a value statement, it's a preference heuristic.  I absolutely won't play or run a 5e railroad, for instance, because sacrificing that much agency does not come with sufficient benefit (in fact, I see no benefit whatsoever, but someone else might).</blockquote>

Verification