NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8162253" data-attributes="member: 6696971">Unfortunately, I'm a bit pressed for time so I'm not able to answer all of the questions/counters that you and [USER=16814]@Ovinomancer[/USER] have.  I don't want to short-shrift them though so I'm going to put together a meaty post tonight or tomorrow or the next day when I have more time to read in full, digest, and formulate my thoughts (because I'm working my own way through them in real time).To answer your last question (that I've bolded) and then propose a quick example though.  Hopefully:* A means for people to understand (a) how Protagonist Agency is made manifest (at the system level and at the play level), (b) how it can manifest DESPITE having considerably less actual Tactical or Strategic Agency that a player might enjoy in another game while not enjoying much, if any, Protagonist Agency (contrast My Life With Master with many forms of D&D 5e), and (b) why some games/play produces it and why some other games/play doesn't produce it.I feel like a lot of the problem of these conversations is that Protagonist Agency just gets folded into other two and then ASSUMED that if you have x amount of Tactical or Strategic agency, then its inevitable that you have x amount of Protagonist Agency.  This is fundamentally not true and I'm hoping that a matrix serves to make this clear.* I want to clarify (for others but also myself) when, at the actual game machinery/interface level, Character and Setting are just conceptually discrete things...but not actually discrete things.  When is it not possible to "pick up the Character Piece" without simultaneously "picking up the Setting Piece".It appears that in these conversations we've had over the years that some believe that its possible for "on the Venn Diagram of the Vector/Piece/Medium" that (at the actual GAME LEVEL) a player can nearly always just exclusively pick up the Character Piece and make a move without picking up Situation or Setting pieces.I'm confident that isn't true so I'm trying to build a matrix to (a) show when this is true and when this is not true and (b) therefore show that exclusively picking up the Character Piece is artifice, self-deception, illusion in the course of any given segment of play.  I'm presently thinking this is likely only possible to maintain this persistently in very specific low level, highly structured Dungeon Crawls (eg Moldvay Basic) when you're playing a Fighter or a Dwarf...but I'm not certain.* I want to discretize Tactical and Strategic Agency and how this system/design actuates this in play.  Yes, there will invariably be interdependence, but there are enough degrees of freedom at the design level that games like 4e D&D, Mouse Guard, and Dogs in the Vineyard (both predominantly Tactical games) are (a) meaningfully different than games that feature both (either in equilibrium like Blades in the Dark, elegant crawl games like Torchbearer, or wildly out of equilibrium at any given time like 1e/2e/3.x D&D) and (b) how this manifests at the design level of Classes/Playbooks (eg why is the Classic D&D Spellcaster so much more powerful than the D&D Fighter).* I think this matrix (or something similar) will have explanatory power of how to design games (Torchbearer and Blades in the Dark) which have all 3 of Protagonist, Tactical, and Strategic Agency and none of these things ever become at tension during play.  When the design around these 3 things is not robust (but it aims and/or alleges to be) and the play becomes unwieldy, it gives rise to Force manifesting in play as a participant (typically a GM) arrests 1 or 2 of those so that the third can be prioritized and survive that "contact with the enemy."  This paradigm shows that there is an actual apex priority in play and that, when push comes to shove (because system hasn't been able to maintain equilibrium and its offloaded on the GM to juggle this), it will win out (because the GM expresses their authority to make it so...typically with sleight of hand/illusion to keep up the pretense that all 3 of these things are actually still in equilibrium...when they're absolutely not).This, in my opinion, is a HUGE issue with D&D and it hasn't been forensically broken out as to how/why this happens.  The Forge tried to tackle this with its "incoherency" model, but that didn't do enough work (or at least the right kind) with most people but it absolutely is a real thing and understanding it would be very good.[HR][/HR]Alright, a move in play to take apart.  I think the Dungeon World Spout Lore move shares a lot in common with a Blades in the Dark Flashbacks, so I want to discuss that move.Dungeon World - Spout LoreVonn's Player Action Declaration - "We've been on the run from this Orc Horde for two days straight.  We have to get out of this valley!  I don't know about you guys but my Fighter Vonn is exhausted.  I've got 2 Debilities (one of them Strength!), I'm at half HPs, I've got 1 Ration Left and 0 Adventuring Gear left!  And my Scale Armor is damaged so I'm at 1 Armor instead of 2!Vonn turns to the Elven Arcane Duelist.  Triellia, your people lived in these mountains before the Orc Horde crashed over them like a tidal wave breaking a shore. You must have heard of a a secret way out!Triella's Player Action Declaration - "When we fought and lost to these orcs there must have been an Alamo with a secret tunnel or a portal or a chimney to climb to the top of the mountains so the noncombatants could escape.  Elves always have contingencies!Rolls Spout Lore with +1 due to Warfare.  Now if this player gets a 7-9, they're going to get something interesting...its on them to make it useful. If they get a 10+, its going to be something both interesting and useful.  Given the games ethos, structure, and the principles that bind and inform the GM's response, a 7+ response is likely going to come from either (a) the GM using this exact prior conversation/speculation by the players (use the answers) as an input or (b) they'll ask further questions (and use the answers).  So the player is going to pick up the Setting Game Piece here.  If they get a 10+, it will bind the GM to give them something useful as well as interesting, which, combined with ask questions and use the answers, will have the player picking up the Situation Game Piece here.Interestingly, on a 6-, the constellation of ethos, structure, and principles that inform the GM's response will ALSO have had the player "pick up the Situation Game Piece by proxy (at least...its possible that new Setting may be generated and established as well here)" because their situation will change adversely with the context of prior play!  Obviously they will have picked up their Character Game Piece in order to make the move.  So some formulation of Character + Situation or Character + Setting or Character + Situation + Setting will 100 % emerge as a play byproduct (even on a failure!).Flashbacks are similar.Thoughts?</blockquote>

Verification