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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="robertsconley" data-source="post: 9641517" data-attributes="member: 13383">The answer depends entirely on the creative goals.Yes, because the creative goal of the game was to simulate characters navigating a dangerous, semi-realistic universe where such an AI could plausibly exist. The tension it created was consistent with that goal. And within that frame, you did make meaningful decisions, just not always with full understanding or perfect outcomes.Likewise, look at games like Call of Cthulhu or The One Ring. In those systems, your character will, given enough time, go insane or fall to Shadow. There is no escaping that fate.But that doesn't mean you lack agency. The goal in those games is to see how far your character can go before that point. What impact they can make. Whether they retire with their soul intact, these are meaningful choices tailored to the setting and system's tone.Here’s where I stand:Yes, I talk a lot about sandbox campaigns, which aim to maximize player agency. That’s my preference. But it’s just that, a preference. I like sandbox play the same way I like the color blue. Blue isn't superior to red. It’s just the one I gravitate toward.What matters is whether a campaign's degree of agency supports its creative goals, not whether it hits some universal threshold.So let me ask this:Have you played a campaign or RPG that offered no meaningful choices or agency? Not just fewer than you liked, but none at all?I ask not to trap you, but because I suspect that even in such cases, we’d find meaningful choices aligned with the creative goals. That’s the point I’m driving at: the amount of agency should match the goals, not exceed or ignore them.And when that happens, I’d argue that agency and meaningful choices are present, even constrained, delayed, or subtle.Hope this clarifies things.</blockquote>

Verification