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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9642172" data-attributes="member: 6785785">If you sign up for basketball, you know what you're getting into, right? I mean... assuming you understand the rules of play and probably some kind of expectation of the skill level.  You're making an informed decision. Wanting to win the game is the reason you exercise your agency. You can try and steal the ball from opponents... but can't foul them. You can shoot, but only score if the ball goes in. And so on. You understand at any point what it is that you should be working toward, and you know what you are and are not allowed to do. So wanting limits on Gm authority to the point where they're as bound to the rules as a player means you don't want to play RPGs? I don't follow that logic at all. I don't know what interpretation of the GM that you're rejecting... It is. But the parts where anyone says "I play and enjoy low agency games" is ignored. I shared an example of a near absolute-zero level of agency in a D&D game. It was not what I wanted. However, it would not have taken a significant increase in my agency as a player for that game to become tolerable, and then only a little more for it to become enjoyable. Not all games need the same amount of agency as others. Clearly though, that's not the reason for all rules. I mean, you like fewer rules... but you still like rules, right? Are the rules you like aren't just about preventing someone from doing bad things, right? But not anyone else? I think the OP makes a very compelling case for... not more rules... but transparent rules. Rules that are clear and that are binding to all participants.</blockquote>

Verification