D&D General [rant]The conservatism of D&D fans is exhausting.

[Pedantic]

Yes, I prefer when metacurrencies are diegetic like Willpower. Destiny in FFGSW kinda falls into this for me due the framing of it representing the Force, even though it's really no different from say, SW's Bennies.

Yeah a lot of "meta" currencies are really just an abstraction for "spend extra effort" with some unusual uses outside of trying harder tracked on.

 

[JConstantine]

...It's a modern day supernatural game where you play monster hunters. Of course you're special and unique.

To be fair, there's a difference between monster hunters in the vein of Dracula vs those in Buffy (including Xander post Halloween).

 

[clearstream]

For the record, labeling the issues some folks have with presentation of material as "idiosyncrasies" comes off as demeaning, at least to me. Like only mechanical results really matter.

It's the sort of perspective I characterised as formalist earlier: the notion that the meaningful game play comes from mechanics and not players. That overstates the control RPG rules exercise over players and gives short shrift to player's central role in the ritual, social, ethical and political aspects of play.

I'm fascinated by game rules and enjoy rules-y games, but that doesn't necessitate undervaluing the role of players.

 

[Enrahim]

Well, I have. The calvinball point was specifically in response to:

The point is that the GM deciding on the runes doesn't result in less player agency because power and agency often conflict. It's not Orwellian doublethink to say that.

In the specific case of the runes, I think they result in less player agency for reasons I've discussed previously.

Are you sure agency is the right term to use here? It at least seem used for very different purpose than common in RPG discourse, where typically power and agency is used somewhat interchangably. You might want to clarify how you intend the word to be understood. I do not think the Calvin ball example is sufficiently illuminating, so you might want to look for some thing else, like "meaningful play"

 

[JConstantine]

That's the problem with GNS. You can't divide RPGs into simply three categories; they're far too complex that that.

Agreed. I noted earlier in the thread that if one is going to use a threefold model, then it's better as a ternary diagram rather than separate boxes.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Then why does it, particularly in the runes example?

It doesn't!

 

[clearstream]

The point is that the GM deciding on the runes doesn't result in less player agency because power and agency often conflict. It's not Orwellian doublethink to say that.

In the specific case of the runes, I think they result in less player agency for reasons I've discussed previously.

It's hard to see how player nominating what the runes will mean on success results in less agency for that player than GM nominating it. Games require voluntary surrenders of agency (e.g. to follow the rules) so it's more question of how agency is structured and to what ends.

 

[JConstantine]

Actually, I think the first example about the ears is a great case for precisely this kind of undesirable influence. In the kind of game, it might be given to a player to know that information, but not to establish it, and especially not to establish it as part of gameplay. You can imagine that being an out of game discussion, but that would be a separate worldbuilding activity, not part of play.

Yes, which is why I noted people might not agree with the specific examples. Where "the line" is clearly differs between individuals as demonstrated by this thread, but I think the sentiment is sound.

 

[The Firebird]

Are you sure agency is the right term to use here? It at least seem used for very different purpose than common in RPG discourse, where typically power and agency is used somewhat interchangably. You might want to clarify how you intend the word to be understood. I do not think the Calvin ball example is sufficiently illuminating, so you might want to look for some thing else, like "meaningful play"

It might be better to pick a different one. There are clearly two different conceptions of agency...and both sides think their method leads to more agency.

Perhaps we can frame them as agency as player and agency as character.

When I as a player say "my character examines these runes" or "my character picks the lock", I am asserting agency as a character. My character interacts with the world and to the extent that the world is fixed my character's actions have specific effects that can improve the game state.

When I say "I hope the runes are this", roll and that becomes reality, I'm asserting agency as a player. Or perhaps an author? I'm authoring new fiction to generate the outcome my character hoped for.

My point is that these two types of agency are opposed. For agency as character to be meaningful, the actions must be interacting with an objective game state. If I read the runes, get a 10+, and they turn out to be beneficial, I didn't exercise meaningful agency as character because I didn't take a specific action which improved the game state. Instead the roll led to meta result of good and the player was permitted to author some new fiction.

From the character's perspective...the author is still not me. It is someone else. And the fact that someone else can roll dice and see what happens with my life, and this takes precedence over the actions I choose to take, means I have very little agency indeed.

 

[Pedantic]

It's hard to see how player nominating what the runes will mean on success results in less agency for that player than GM nominating it. Games require voluntary surrenders of agency (e.g. to follow the rules) so it's more question of how agency is structured and to what ends.

I've come to believe you can't evaluate agency, in the sense of gameplay, without explaining the goal and the evaluation of victory. Agency doesn't exist without a purpose it can be applied to; if there isn't an evaluable goal, then the question is meaningless. You have to want something for any discussion of your ability to get it to take place.