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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8148147" data-attributes="member: 82106">OK, I was just using this to point out how there are only certain 'facets' of play (to use an ontology term, roughly equivalent to 'degree of freedom' in engineering) that traditionalists seem to be willing to grant legitimacy to. In terms of 'agency' though, I don't think it is really worthwhile to define this way. I think we haven't really talked about that aspect much, or at least not in quite these terms (I'm old, my memory of 40 pages ago is foggy, forgive me if we have). OBVIOUSLY there have to be some constraints on what PCs are fictionally able to do. We call this 'fictional position'. Nothing is wrong with this, and I don't think anyone reasonable doesn't acknowledge that these constraints will be a factor in play. In fact, without such constraints, we are again at Czege Principle violation land, because that implies I as player can pose a conflict and then simply resolve it by waving my magic agency wand! So play in all meaningful RPGs (of which I am aware) requires fictional constraints to exist. These may also be expressed in terms of mechanics and/or process in play. So, in D&D generally a wall is a physical barrier to movement. Its existence is traditionally always established by the GM. In narrative play it might be established by the player, but more likely it is still a GM thing, and how to overcome it may be developed by the player. They can only do so in ways which relate to elaborating on the narrative and honoring the constraint. So in BW a PC might be able to "find a secret door" or something like that, although it might cost them resources, time, whatever (I am not much of a BW guy, played Mousegard a few times). Often a PC will simply have no answer for a particular constraint outside of those ordinarily available to anyone 'in game' (IE walk around it). In Prince Valiant a feeling of Lust for Guenevere is apparently also a constraint! Granted it is a less concrete one and navigating it is trickier perhaps, but it has about the same effect on agency as the wall.In both cases, presumably, agency equates to the player having a say in if the play of the game is focusing on traversing a maze, or in mastering their feelings and whatever. They must have agreed to these constraints in some way by consenting to this form of play. I think the main contention here is simply that narrative games where the player has input into the 'form of play' in a concrete way DURING play provide an explicit path to exercising this agency, and that, from a certain perspective it is really the only agency that ultimately matters, since constraints will always exist. When people misunderstand narrative play as being "free of unwanted constraints" they are misapprehending what it is. Constraints are just as significant as in any other type of play, but their origin and nature are different, and who is responsible for them is different (to an extent, sometimes).</blockquote>

Verification