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: 8160196" data-attributes="member: 16814">These are not restrictions of the game.  When discussing player agency, we're talking about how the game the player is playing enables or disables agency.  These things you're talking about are social contract issues.  I believe I just mentioned the problem of social contracts infiltrating understanding of how games work, and this is another excellent example.Play-acting.  Roleplaying doesn't require play-acting.  And, play-acting is not necessary to any RPG.  It definitely something I'd encourage anyone to do because it's fun and it adds to the experience, but the mechanics and systems of these games operate just fine without any play-acting.Let's not do the confuse roleplaying with play-acting at that table.  I'm roleplaying just by playing Bob the Fighter -- I've taken on the role of that character and will, to different degrees in different games, engage the game in the guise of that role.  Me using a funny voice or 1st person doesn't really engage any mechanics of the games. Caveat:  It may engage the aspect of a game where the goal is to convince the GM, through entertaining them, to allow your character to do something.  Come to think of it, this is a common thread for those arguing that play-acting is essential to RPGs.I agree, 100%, see above about the difference between roleplaying and play-acting.  Or rather, that play-acting is just one way to roleplay.There's no such thing as a game feature that enables or disables players from being able to play-act their characters.  It's orthogonal to the issues discussed.  Any agency involved in play-acting is outside the game, not inside it; ie, it's a function of what's acceptable at your table.</blockquote>

Verification