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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Crimson Longinus" data-source="post: 9559358" data-attributes="member: 7025508">First, sympathetic emotions often reflect the emotions of the character. But yeah, when I am immersed into the viewpoint of the chracter, when I have internalised their persona, then yeah, I do feel the feelings of the character, at least to some degree. And to me such inhabitation is kinda the main point of playing RPGs. And I most definitely do not need or want or need rules for that.Rules dictating the emotions of the character limit the player's agency to generate such feelings via the their internal model of the character. Seems pretty straightforward.I'm sure one indeed could. And if a player felt agency regarding such matters important to them, yet the game would not allow it, then it would be a problem for them.And of course the mystery is not real mystery in a sense that the events are physically real, but it is real mystery in sense that there are facts that exist about it, that can be found and deduced. That is obviously different than the players inventing clues and events that in the end resemble a mystery story.Games have structures and limitations that enable one sort of play but which might simultaneously limit another. As another example. some games might have rules which allow resolving combats swiftly, perhaps with one roll. This might be better for certain sort of drama, but it simultaneously disallows the player agency to affect the outcome of the fight via tactical skills.I agree that agency of setting goals is important, but it is not only sort of agency a player can have in the game, nor it is something everyone cares about. For example, to some it might be more important to have agency to set means and tactics for achieving said goals.Now setting the opposition, that seems far more contentious. Of course setting goals to some degree determines the opposition, but not fully and not always.And as for your cliché example what some people in this thread have argued for, and I have vehemently argued against, is that in such a situation the "villain quest giver" should be able to compel via social mechanics the PCs to believe he's their ally and even compel the them to do his bidding. To me that would seriously harm the player agency of setting their own goals.Perhaps. But to me some of your examples go against this. For example if in an Arthurian milieu a NPC can compel the PC to fall in love with them against the player's wishes, then to me this would limit the player's agency for setting their character's goals, at least if we take this feeling and the genre conventions seriously.When Sherlock Holmes or Hercule Poirot solve a case, then it of course to certain degree is about the character. They do it in their own style. Like various Star Trek captains would probably solve similar situations differently as they're different sort of people. But the focus of the story still is not always, or even often about the personal issues of these characters. It is about the situation and solving the problem.</blockquote>

Verification