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

[robertsconley]

I was going off your previous comment which said you used "judgment" and didn't talk about techniques. I think what the techniques are and how consistently they're applied matters quite a bit.

In my Living World sandbox campaign, judgment and technique are interwoven. When my players question a decision, I can’t just say, “Well, that’s what would logically happen.” I have to walk them through my line of reasoning to show how I reached that conclusion.

What I do is an application of what Aristotle called practical wisdom, knowing when to follow rules and when to bend them in order to create a world that not only feels consistent but also fair to the players, even when their choices lead to adverse consequences.

This is what distinguishes my Living World approach from similar systems like Blorb.

And for someone who distrusts any referee judgment calls unless they are shared or strictly constrained, my Living World approach will not address their concerns. It assumes that good play emerges from reasoned transparency and group trust, not just rule adherence.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Then why are you trying to get people to conform to your definition?

Where did I tell anyone they must conform?

Why are you not asking anyone else why they’re trying to get me to conform?

 

[TwoSix]

Then why are you trying to get people to conform to your definition?

Why would any of us post on a message board if we didn't have some sense of "ideas matter" and "how we communicate those ideas matter"?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Yes, obviously that is the case. But it is pointing to one of the key engines of agency in a roleplaying game. A board game like clue, you don't really have much agency. You are just playing a system. In living world sandbox, you have all kinds of agency because you can do whatever you want as the character. This is why I think fixating on rules expectations isn't really helpful when trying evaluate agency. It isn't the only thing that matters.



Again this just feels like word play and you have made this argument a number of times. I've responded to it, and we are at an impasse. I explained to you why i think this example is so bad



It isn't. They are completely connected and that is the point we are trying to make. Again, these are largely just linguistic arguments being used to uphold one play style over another. I will point out, I am not treating it as the zero sum game you are. My approach is allowing both of these ways to be maximizing agency. Because both styles and approaches are responses to railroads and arise out of desires to increase agency. They are effectively two different answers to the same problem. I don't see one as being more valuable or offering greater agency. They just offer different solutions, and so there are distinctions but one isn't higher quality than the other in terms of agency

If we’re at an impasse, then what are you replying for? As I said earlier, your replies feel like requests for elaboration. You’re asking questions of me, or making casual accusations about my “agenda” or that I’m using “word play” or “linguistic tricks”.

I’ve said several times it’s a difference of opinion. All I’m doing is stating my opinion and why I hold it.

 

[Bedrockgames]

In my Living World sandbox campaign, judgment and technique are interwoven. When my players question a decision, I can’t just say, “Well, that’s what would logically happen.” I have to walk them through my line of reasoning to show how I reached that conclusion.

What I do is an application of what Aristotle called practical wisdom, knowing when to follow rules and when to bend them in order to create a world that not only feels consistent but also fair to the players, even when their choices lead to adverse consequences.

This is what distinguishes my Living World approach from similar systems like Blorb.

And for someone who distrusts any referee judgment calls unless they are shared or strictly constrained, my Living World approach will not address their concerns. It assumes that good play emerges from reasoned transparency and group trust, not just rule adherence.

Yeah, like I have said in other threads. I am not precious about things like notes. I often show them to players after the fact so they can see how their choices mattered. And I have a pretty extensive back and forth leading up to decisions. If I think they wouldn't have information, unless there is some pressing reason I can't give them an explanation (like there is a trap or something that I am trying not to give away), I don't mind explaining myself, I don't mind hearing their thoughts and changing what I settle on. I also often ask them if my idea for a ruling is sound in their opinion. This isn't like some tyrannical GM regime or anything try to hide info from players. I am hiding information, when I think they would think, they shouldn't have access to it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, I'm operating with the definition of agency, and how it applies to playing games. As I said, that's as neutrally as I can manage.

Whereas you are dividing agency into two categories... character agency and meta agency. Which seems far more agenda driven than my take.

Insisting that meta agency is needed is definitely agenda driven from my perspective.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Here's how I see it:

Not wanting new ideas in your gaming ... not a problem.
Not wanting new ideas in gaming ... problem.

Again: like what you like, tolerate what you don't, so long as no harm is done either way.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The argument between "new things are generally good" and "new things are generally bad/dangerous" is a tension that has existed within humanity since before the dawn of the species. It's not really going away.

And yet we keep talking about it.

 

[TwoSix]

Insisting that meta agency is needed is definitely agenda driven from my perspective.

No one said "needed". It's simply a concept that exists, and thus can be less or more.

 

[TwoSix]

And yet we keep talking about it.

Because it's endlessly relevant.