Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Fenris-77" data-source="post: 8014096" data-attributes="member: 6993955">I'm going to quote the post I was replying to to try and clear this up...See the three bolded parts? That looks an awful lot like talking about the sum possibly being greater than the total of the parts. You even used the word sum. Anyway, I don't think getting to where I got to is at all strange given your post. I wasn't accusing you of anything either, just following along and adding my own thoughts in to what you were saying. Anyway, no, no offense meant at all. It does, but I'm not really that interested in explaining why again. We can disagree, and it was only a general example to begin with.Of course no one is bound by my definitions, that would be rude of me. It just helps when everyone's using the same terms or definitions because it makes it easier to keep straight what's actually on the table. You are free to use whatever definition you want, of course, I only brought that up because in a couple of spots I wasn't quite sure what bits you were talking about.  The definition I'm using is pretty much the same one that [USER=16586]@Campbell[/USER], [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER], and to an extent [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER] are using, if that helps any.I have a whole detailed post upstream about how players agency isn't really one, or two, particular things. It stems from all kinds of places in the rules and table conventions. The notion of questions and answers was something I brought up to illustrate my point. Also, [USER=6696971]@Manbearcat[/USER] 's post above is an excellent example.Not a wrong term, just a different one, and one that hasn't been used elsewhere in the thread. And based on your position, not the term, I think there's a disconnect somewhere, yes. That's not a criticism, this thread has been wide ranging, and pulling all the strands together isn't simple.It seems, from your posts, that you are primarily focused on action outcomes and adjudication as the benchmark for player agency. I'm still not quite sure what the second type is that you're referring to. Again, big thread, lotta posts. Anyway, the whole point was discussion, so please remind me and I'd be happy to engage.Probably, yeah, see above. I'm not trying to force you to do anything either, but I am trying to figure out when we're talking about the same thing or not.Well, I don't know about fictional outcomes, since I'm still not 100% sure what you mean by that, but I can give you two examples, one about actions adjudication, and one not.If your use of fictional outcomes indexes action adjudication the way I think it does, then yes, it is different from broader ideas of narrative control. Action adjudication by the DM is very much a key component here of course. A DM who has a very strict, textual approach to the rules, might often limit the outcome of actions to strict ideas about failure and success, and avoid expanding on success in any kind of narrative way. So, for example, I say I'm going to disguise myself as a old man to fool the gate guard (I'm wanted by the authorities!). One style of adjudication on a success gets you the response ok, he thinks you're an old man, now what? At which point the player has to make another action declaration about going through the gate, which involves another potential fail state. That GM, by requiring multiple rolls, is limiting player agency by multiplying the chance of failure. A different GM, one with a more narrative bent, might reply to the first success with no problem, he waves you through the gate without a second glance. Both GMs are following the rules, but with significantly different outcomes as far as agency is concerned. Don't take that simple example to seriously, it's only meant to index the propensity of a given DM to call for more or less rolls to accomplish tasks -  it's the frequency there that matters for us. That's our action adjudication example.I'll give you a second example that isn't action adjudication, nor even really covered under the rules, but is more a part of style and table conventions. Let's call it the chandelier question. A frequent feature of many RPGs, D&D included, is that a player will ask the GM is there X? , in our case it'll be the chandelier. We all know that the reason the player is asking is because they're going to swing from it if it's there. Some GMs, the one who are heavily maps and notes oriented, base their answer strictly on predetermined ideas about the space - if there's a chandelier in their notes you're good, otherwise, not so much. Even if it's not in the notes, they'll probably use their notes to help them decide if there's a chandelier or not. A different GM, one with a more fiction first approach, will base their decision on different criteria. There, unless there's a good reason that there shouldn't be a chandelier there is one, because the player asked and saying yes moves the narrative forward. This example extends to all manner of things, not just chandeliers, obviously any physical features are in play, but it also applies to NPCs and lore, just to name a couple. The first GM is running a lower agency game than the second GM. What we are really talking about here is the likelihood that player suggestions and ideas will be incorporated into the narrative. Players in the first game are far less likely to ask that kind of question because they quickly learn that they mostly wont get the answer they want. In the second game they will. Less agency, more agency. Obviously I'm using slightly exaggerated examples to highlight what is actually a range or spectrum when it comes to describing a set of individual games.I still don't see your point about this. I think it comes back to us having talked past each other for a couple of posts, IDK. I haven't changed my stance on anything though.</blockquote>

Verification