Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 8012789" data-attributes="member: 6795602">You start out by misrepresenting me.&nbsp; Then end up accusing me of misrepresenting you.&nbsp; (That's kind of amusing IMO.)&nbsp; Taking what you say to it's logical conclusion is not misrepresenting you.&nbsp; I get that the first off the cuff example meant to illuminate usually falls short.&nbsp; Happens to me all the time.&nbsp; But that doesn't give you the right to be rude to me.&nbsp; Now on to your updated example.I think [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] mentioned that agency is always in relation to something.&nbsp; I agree there. In this case it's apparent you are talking player agency in relation to fictional outcomes.&nbsp; I think that your point about that is so self-evident that no one disagree with it.&nbsp; The problem arises when you shorten that to player agency as if there's no other kind.Let me illustrate the other kind by introducing another mechanic in addition to yours above.&nbsp; On a 1-3 the player decides the PC action.&nbsp; On a 4-6 the DM decides the PC action.&nbsp; This example also illustrates an additional loss of player agency.&nbsp; The kind that is in relation to declaring PC actions.And that's why I think proper and precise definitions matter.&nbsp; We are talking past each other because we are talking about 2 different things but using the same shorthand term to designate it.&nbsp; The ambiguity and disagreement goes away as soon as we add the additional precision needed.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FrogReaver, post: 8012789, member: 6795602"] You start out by misrepresenting me. Then end up accusing me of misrepresenting you. (That's kind of amusing IMO.) Taking what you say to it's logical conclusion is not misrepresenting you. I get that the first off the cuff example meant to illuminate usually falls short. Happens to me all the time. But that doesn't give you the right to be rude to me. Now on to your updated example. I think [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER] mentioned that agency is always in relation to something. I agree there. In this case it's apparent you are talking player agency in relation to fictional outcomes. I think that your point about that is so self-evident that no one disagree with it. The problem arises when you shorten that to player agency as if there's no other kind. Let me illustrate the other kind by introducing another mechanic in addition to yours above. On a 1-3 the player decides the PC action. On a 4-6 the DM decides the PC action. This example also illustrates an additional loss of player agency. The kind that is in relation to declaring PC actions. And that's why I think proper and precise definitions matter. We are talking past each other because we are talking about 2 different things but using the same shorthand term to designate it. The ambiguity and disagreement goes away as soon as we add the additional precision needed. [/QUOTE]

Verification