Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 8164983" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I think that’s part of it.But I’m also confident that we’re seeing:1) A difference of opinion on what makes a choice palatable.&nbsp; Total legitimate in isolation, but not when it unknowingly gets folded into meaningful.&nbsp; This has happened and it make extracting the palatable and confronting only the meaningful much more difficult.&nbsp; Or, worse still, some will say that its impossible to extract palatable from meaningful.&nbsp; That couldn't be more of a non-starter.2) And there are also some who feel (theoretically, but not empirically) that a certain menu/archetype of choices made possible for players will or should render the play priority of testing skill anathema or impossible to coherently achieve.&nbsp; I would like to see this empirically demonstrated.3) And there are others still that feel that a certain menu of choices that empowers content creation that imposes on singular authority (GM) over setting will invariably render setting incoherent (which has x, y, z downstream effects).&nbsp; Again, theoretical, not empirical.4) And I wonder if there is some level of choices are only meaningful if Protagonist Agency is being flexed.&nbsp; I'm not sure if this is a thing, but, if it is, I don't agree and its empirically not true (because Pawn Stance Skilled Play disproves this).Those 4 are why I feel its important to develop some kind of clarifying matrix that discretizes (while simultaneously understanding interdependence) the mediums by which players express agency, the types of agency they will express, and the impact on play of any given configuration.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Manbearcat, post: 8164983, member: 6696971"] I think that’s part of it. But I’m also confident that we’re seeing: 1) A difference of opinion on what makes a choice [I]palatable[/I]. Total legitimate in isolation, but not when it unknowingly gets folded into [I]meaningful. [/I]This has happened and it make extracting the [I]palatable [/I]and confronting only the [I]meaningful [/I]much more difficult. Or, worse still, some will say that its [I]impossible to extract palatable from meaningful.[/I] That couldn't be more of a non-starter. 2) And there are also some who feel (theoretically, but not empirically) that a certain menu/archetype of choices made possible for players will or should render the play priority of [I]testing skill[/I] anathema or impossible to coherently achieve. I would like to see this empirically demonstrated. 3) And there are others still that feel that a certain menu of choices that [I]empowers content creation that imposes on singular authority (GM) over setting will invariably render setting incoherent[/I] (which has x, y, z downstream effects). Again, theoretical, not empirical. 4) And I wonder if there is some level of [I]choices are only meaningful if Protagonist Agency is being flexed[/I]. I'm not sure if this is a thing, but, if it is, I don't agree and its empirically not true (because Pawn Stance Skilled Play disproves this). Those 4 are why I feel its important to develop some kind of clarifying matrix that discretizes (while simultaneously understanding interdependence) the mediums by which players express agency, the types of agency they will express, and the impact on play of any given configuration. [/QUOTE]

Verification