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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 8165239" data-attributes="member: 82106">Now, this is kind of interesting in terms of contrasting with my own position. I see it as a bit paradoxical that NOT having the choice to play a 'powerless' (in some sense) character grants you MORE agency. That doesn't seem right to me...This is one of several reasons I don't really get behind [USER=85555]@Bedrockgames[/USER] definition of agency, nor subscribe to the theory that there are 'different kinds' of agency in any fundamental sense. Couple this with the already long-since made refutation of the idea of 'character effectiveness' as agency when the GM still reserves ALL power over the fiction at the table. Players in this theory are like subjects in some pre-Democracy European Kingdom, they are mere subjects. If they exercise some freedom it is either simply a grant of the power of the Sovereign (GM), or an act of rebellion! So, given that oddity, I would have to say that no, playing a more powerful character is irrelevant. It is control over the concerns and agenda of the game as it relates to the player's part in it which can only constitute true agency, just like only equal participation in the Sovereignty (IE Democracy) is the only way to be truly free (or by being the king/DM). As another poster (Aldarc? Hawkeyefan?) mentioned, this doesn't require the power of direct authorship, it can be PbtA-like "requirement to focus on the player's concerns as an agenda" but it needs to put the player in a 'sovereign' position, even if their role is smaller (IE the President of the US obviously wields the sovereignty of a nation, but doesn't own it).</blockquote>

Verification