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: 8150342" data-attributes="member: 16814">Sure, let's continue ad argumentum.  The situation you have here is that you claim that there is agency in choosing or not choosing to do in-character role play.  That this choice is largely a wash -- both work equally well.  We're still, then, back to looking at how the actions are resolved in the game as the prime measure of agency.  How the choice to go towards water works is where we'll find any differences in agency.  Here, we're back to the structures I posted earlier -- either the GM has full authority to determine the resolution of the action (including negating it) or the player has some ability to determine the resolution space, either through a mechanic or the GM not being allowed to negate the action, only test it.  Here, it seems clear that the agency balance still tilts away from GM decides systems, even as you claim that there's still agency in choosing whether or not this happens while you choose to act in-character or don't.Put simply, even if we accept your premise that the choice to act in-character or not is agency (and I agree it is, just not player agency but rather outside of the game), then we're still looking to the same set of issues to determine whether or not one method involves more agency than another.  Your claim doesn't impact the situation.  Feel free to pose a counter example where you think it does, though.  I played traditional style D&D for decades, and I can't think of any.And, again, this isn't a value statement.  There's lots of other things the games can do that can matter more to you.  Clearly, I don't have a problem with playing a game I think has less agency than others.  You still haven't addressed this point, by the way -- why would I engage in devious redefinitions to win a point that aims squarely at my own play?</blockquote>

Verification