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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6785790" data-attributes="member: 6696971">To satisfy your "agency-o-meter", let us call it.  If you can, could you take a look at the example I composed above and maybe comment on the necessary PC build components and resolution mechanics to satisfy your "agency-o-meter" in a Basketball RPG?The issue for me is that a lot of this is contingent upon stuff that isn't malleable...stuff that is codified into system; the level of abstraction built into PC build and the resolution mechanics, the genre expectations, the the overall play agenda/priorities, and the GMing principles that all serve to drive play.As has been mentioned by  @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=42582" target="_blank">pemerton</a> and chaochou, Moldvay Basic, Tunnels and Trolls, and Torchbearer are very different games than Burning Wheel, Dungeon World, and D&D 4e.A game that puts at its centerpiece the solving of long-term logistical puzzles (getting as much stuff out of this dungeon before you have to turn back because of depleted resources or before you're squished) is going to be very different from a game that puts at its centerpiece dealing with thematically compelling (meaning the PCs have buy-in) conflicts RIGHT NOW.A game that requires <--> level of zoom for each player action declaration is going to be different from a game that requires <-----------> level of zoom for each player action declaration.  The first might require 5 steps of task resolution to get from one point of play to another.  The latter might require 2.  The first has granular PC build resources and resolution mechanics while the second has abstract.  The first might tightly constrain individual outcomes of resolved action declarations to outcome a or b (and possibly c) with little to no advice to the GM on moving the fiction from action declaration to outcome/fallout (because all of that overhead is already performed/constrained by the task resolution system).  Contrast with the second, where outcomes are not auto-performed/constrained by a bounded task resolution system, but rather by robust GMing advice/principles and the top-down agenda of the game.There is some overlap in play priorities and in GMing advice, but it is not considerable (and that overlap is subordinate to other dominant play/GMing imperatives).</blockquote>

Verification