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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8016021" data-attributes="member: 16814">No, they don't require radically different expectations of GM styles, but then that's kinda not directly related to discussing where agency exists.  More on this in a moment.I suppose that I don't really see agency existing at discrete points but rather emerging from the combination of multiple points.  Being able to declare an action isn't agency unless that action has a chance to exert change and isn't later reversed using fiat.  All of these things have to be true for agency to exist -- loss of any of them removes agency.  This is a classic example of the sum being greater than the parts -- each part is important to agency, but the sum of the parts is the full expression of agency.Back to where agency exists.  One can run a game without ever consciously considering agency, and run it well.  If, however, we are going to consider agency, it helps to define it and locate it in play without reference to supporting or not supporting our preferred play.  I run very different games between systems, and therefore agency changes.  I'd say that my players have more tools available to express agency in my Blades game, but they also give up agency because I can narrate their characters doing unintended things on a failure.  This is all mediated by the mechanics and strong principles of play to achieve the play goals.  Do my players have more agency in Blades than in my 5e game?  Eh.  It's different, but probably, a little bit. Mostly because Blades is so laser focused on play that takes full advantage of the agency it provides and just doesn't do the other stuff where it's agency wouldn't.  5e is more, broad, and that lack of focus means that agency can suffer as play wanders in and out of different areas of agency (Combat, I'm looking at you and your glorious, meticulously structured agency). And, that's absolutely fine.  Amount of agency is not a benchmark for fun.  More agency doesn't equal more fun, and less doesn't equal less.  I love playing Gloomhaven, for instance, but I have a lot less agency in that game than in any RPG.  Yet, I've played in RPGs that aren't nearly as much fun.  Agency != fun.In fact, I'd say that a large part of good design is where and how you limit agency.  Not provide, but limit.  I find I can play a fun game in 5e, so I don't really care how more or less agency exists between 5e and another game as a matter of how I'm going to spend my entertainment time.  I do care when I'm looking at games and analyzing how they work, and when I do that I'm going to strive to be merciless in my analysis.  This helps me understand the game better, to better understand where the potholes are so I can help steer play around them.  I don't care if I find less agency when I do this, because I want to know where agency exists, where it's threatened, what it's threatened by, so I can use this information appropriately when I run that game.</blockquote>

Verification