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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crimson Longinus" data-source="post: 8153802" data-attributes="member: 7025508">What? None of this made any sense. Of course the odds don't completely even out, but large number of rolls makes the situation far less swingy. And of course tactics can matter in a situation where there would be zero randomness. You don't think chess is tactical?What makes the action meaningful is not whether the things are codified in the rules, it is the existence of objective base reality against which you can make decisions. Rules are one (and often good) way to communicate such reality, but not the only one.At this point I must conclude that you do not understand where the decision points lie in your own game.What makes it low-agency is the player not being able to gain meaningful information or make meaningful choices regarding that goal, at least according to your definition which discounts flavour. The player could have latched into any item, any time, anywhere, and interrogate it in the same manner than the painting to force the check. The rest is RNG.Right. So there actually is some independent reality you can learn about. You actually need to study it more to progress your quest. Meaningful choices can be made.Because this question is meaningless here. The player forces the answer themselves. They could ask the same question regarding a flower pot, and it wouldn't really matter, it would be just the same. The RNG just obfuscates the fact that this is what's happening.There needs to be some reality against which to make decisions for the decisions to matter. Sure, getting to tell a bit of the story and randomising who gets to do it is a form of agency, and if you like that sort of agency good for you. But it is not really making meaningful choices, except perhaps flavour wise, and this is something you had low regard earlier.</blockquote>

Verification