Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 8018846" data-attributes="member: 6795602">Not quite.  Just that one particular type of agency wasn't abridged.The only reason yours may go further is that we haven't sit down and defined those other types of agency yet.  I think both frameworks are valid (they both include each other) but that mine has benefits that yours does not.  In mine we can talk about agency more precisely.  We can talk about the exact place each type of agency fails.  We can talk about whether a game has agency of types A, B, C, D but not E and contrast that with games using other combinations of agency.  In your framework that's really not possible.  The other benefit is that it let's us more accurately discuss and pinpoint when there is a disagreement about a specific type of agency and where that disagreement is coming from.  Is someone rejecting a type of agency as valid.  Are people talking about 2 different types of agency, etc.  I think the basic concept has already done a lot for this conversation in keeping people from talking past each other.I think the same thing can be done with types of agency and be even more illuminating.I mostly agree with the part about evaluating the type of agency you are referring to here as well.  I think there's a problem with the notion of auto-fail.  I use that phrase to differentiate between a DM deciding an action fails and having a chance to make an ability check and having the dice determine failure.  With that said let's evaluate this type of agency.I think there's a major difference in terms of agency when a DM takes the information in the fiction and his notes and makes a decision about success, failure or uncertainty while only taking into account those things.  I think that's much different than a DM ignoring that information and ruling success or failure so that the players will be in a future position he thinks will be better.  To me it's clear the DM in the OP was at least attempting to do the prior.  Anyways, back to the agency question.  From this analysis it seems to me the difference between a DM's decisions taking away agency and not taking away agency is one of Force.  A DM deciding from fiction and notes whether something fails involves no forcing on his part.  Whereas a DM making rulings to get the outcomes he wants is forcing.  IMO That's the essential difference here and why I say that a DM ruling failure is not necessarily taking away player agency.My position isn't that only agency over character's action declarations matters.  It's more that I view it as the most important type of agency for an RPG.I think your too narrowly defining my argument here.  I would only say that if you have at least 1 type of agency that you have some agency, not that you have Agency.  In fact, one interesting piece of my framework when it matures will be evaluating what all types of agency make up what typically gets referred to as Agency.Also, my framework isn't a value statement either.  But it does enable people to talk about the types of agency they value in games.  It's not inherently about labeling one more important than another.  I would say that the value regarding the combination of agency and their reduction or increase is if that meets the play goals of the game.  A DM determining if something fails is an important tool (and we can even discuss whether that tool necessitates a player losing a particular type of agency).I'm curious how you find types of agency not differentiating.  It seems to me like that is even more levels of differentiation than you are used to talking about the concept in.  Maybe you can elaborate here?  Why would discussing types of agency not be comparable to having a ruler with which to make measurements?One final thing that is on my mind.  Disagreeing with your position does not entail that someone only thinks of agency as a positive.</blockquote>

Verification