NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="prabe" data-source="post: 8016757" data-attributes="member: 7016699">It's clear you do get it when in a post just down thread you describe metagame mechanics thus:So I don't understand why in your reply to me you are taking a position that they're the same thing. I would say these metagame mechanics give the player more agency by not requiring the change in the fiction to be something the character can accomplish--as you accurately describe.So, in both procedures, as I understand them:1) The player proposes an action for their character.2) The GM decides if there will be a roll, incorporating into that decision things such as genre-fidelity, etablished fiction, positioning. (Note that "Say yes or roll the dice" still contains a decision point.)3) The player rolls the dice or otherwise resolves the action.4) The result is narrated, faithful to the result of the resolution. Who narrates may be per the rules, or not.Any GM decision that didn't take into account context and genre and all-a-that would be bad-faith GMing, and probably bad GMing. A GM operating in bad faith can remove agency in many ways.If we were playing a game set in the real world, and a player wanted their character to drive to Nome, Alaska from roughly anyplace else, I as GM would have to say they couldn't (unless that place was Teller, Alaska) because there literally are no roads that go there. I wouldn't say in that instance that the player's agency was being subordinated to the GM's--maybe you would, in which case we're further apart than I think we are. If we were playing a game set in a fictional published world, and a player wanted something similar--I'm honestly not familiar enough with published game settings to offer a specific example here--I wouldn't say it's the GM's agency that's being prioritized over the player's agency: I'd say it was something like faithfulness to the setting (you might describe it differently). The difference between that second example and a game like mine where I write my own setting is that large parts of the setting are in my head; I like to think I do a good job of conveying that setting to the players, but it's possible I'm wrong about that. If a player wants their character to do something impossible in the setting (say, walk from Mahassar to Kotima without lots of magic) they can't, and that doesn't feel to me as though I'm denying the player's agency there--again, you might disagree.As I said before in this post--and at least once upthread--a GM operating in bad faith can deny player agency in many ways. In this case he seems to have been denying your ability to change the fiction, which seems pretty definitionally to be denying y'all agency. What you seem to me to be saying is that a GM operating in good-faith, making decisions about what can't work, what can't not work, and what needs to be determined, is denying the players their agency; if that is what you're saying, I disagree.</blockquote>

Verification