Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8160548" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Alright, so here is what I'm trying to accomplish with this:1)  Develop a matrix by which all TTRPGs can have every moment of player agency qualitatively expressed:a)  Medium/vector of expression.b)  Type of expression.2)  Through this matrix evaluate design impetus and architecture, play priorities, and GMing principles.3)  From/through all of the above, analyze instances of play with respect to these things.What I am not trying to do:4)  Capture significant redundancy (if there is too much Venn Diagram overlap, then a broader classification that both concepts can orbit around should be used), extreme corner cases, or hypotheticals.[HR][/HR]I don't want to go discuss (b) too much right now because I want to focus on (a) (I already gave some thoughts on (b) upthread, but I'll go into it further later).  Right now, I want to deliberate on (a) and how it interacts with (4):Is Character "significant redundancy" in relation to Situation and Setting? After much more thought, I'm still unsure.   My initial arrangement of thoughts for the medium/vector classifications was centered around the following questions:* Given any subset of relationship of objects within a gamestate (and the attendant constraint on action declarations due to fictional positioning that a character might be dealing with), what are the limits (both breadth and potency) of reach in terms of action declarations that a player might make through their character?  * With respect to Setting and Situation, do those limits substantially differ from PC to PC and from game to game such that Character is a sufficiently distinguishing medium/vector?Some thoughts:* It is mostly true that mundane characters (whether it be Fighters in D&D or their analogues in other games) are severely restricted by fictional positioning, and therefore their player's action declarations are similarly restricted:What is the reach/range of my weapon?  Is this obstacle bridgeable by way of physical interaction (whether its talking or moving) such that new action declarations might open up?  How can I restrict my adversary by manipulating their relationship with objects within the gamestate?HOWEVER...Fighters and Battlebabes in Dungeon World and Apocalypse World can extend their reach beyond the immediate fictional positioning restraints of their character to interact directly with the situation to impose change via Through Death's Eyes and Visions of Death (make a move that will create "death by fiat").  Further, 4e Fighters can do similarly with Come and Get It.  FitD Flashbacks enable this as well (suspension of present constraints on fictional positioning to propose a change at the Situation level).There are plenty of other examples of this in games.Are the distinguishing components of these moves (and the way they distinguish, say, a Moldvay Basic Fighter froma  4e Fighter or an AW Battlebabe) sufficient to require Character as a medium/vector separate from Situation?I'm putting that to jury for thoughts.</blockquote>

Verification