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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="chaochou" data-source="post: 8017343" data-attributes="member: 99817">So, when we talk about “decides” we are using that as shorthand for “who decides what happens next in a piece of fiction”.Instantly the idea that “the dice decide” is clearly an attempt at semantics, since (as I pointed out) dice can’t establish propositions.This means that a participant in the game has to establish a proposition. That person has agency in the game.The mechanic I used as an example used a dice to choose a participant. And that person gets agency.Posters have attempted to use this to misrepresent this in a number of ways:By focusing only on a single instance where the suggested dice roll goes against a participant and extrapolating that the losing participant never gets agency. This is clearly false, like claiming the player whose move it isn’t in chess never has agency.By claiming that suggesting a participant only has to propose a change to the fiction, even when another has complete veto over it, is sufficient to have agency. This is so obviously false it’s laughable. It’s like claiming that toddlers have agency to get what they want by asking their parents.Only where a game has mechanics to ensure that their proposal can result in specific outcomes they want, and irrespective of whether the GM wants or likes that outcome, does a player have actual agency - not just the fake versions of it so beloved of railroading GMs in this thread.</blockquote>

Verification