Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 8028237" data-attributes="member: 16814">No, you cannot find example of a character having agency.&nbsp; What you can find examples of is an author surprising themselves as they imagine the character and make choices for it.Treating characters as separate from their authors definitely leads to confusion, such as the argument that D&amp;D supports agency for the characters.&nbsp; Again, I invite you, next time you play, to not declare actions for your PC, to not make choices for the PC, and see exactly how much the character does on it's own.&nbsp; You being surprised by what you decided in no way means the imaginary construct of the character made a choice.By the way, this isn't a trap argument -- there's not something waiting to go, &quot;aha, now you agree there's no character agency, you have to also accept....&quot;&nbsp; I like looking at where moments of agency exist in rulesets, not because it's a way to make some games better or worse than others, but because the game is where the agency is.&nbsp; If you can point at those moments, you can better understand how to bring any given game system to bear on them in a way that improves the experience.&nbsp; Or find out what doesn't work, and avoid that.&nbsp; Either way, clearly analyzing where and how agency exists can only make playing a given game better.&nbsp; More agency isn't better -- it's different.&nbsp; Players in Blades enjoy more agency in lots of ways, but that comes at the cost of having to do more of the work to make the game play.&nbsp; If you can see that, and know that, then you can get more out of Blades.&nbsp; If you don't, you can still get lucky.&nbsp; Neither outcome is any defense against just not enjoying the game, though, and that's a valid response.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 8028237, member: 16814"] No, you cannot find example of a character having agency. What you can find examples of is an author surprising themselves as they imagine the character and make choices for it. Treating characters as separate from their authors definitely leads to confusion, such as the argument that D&D supports agency for the characters. Again, I invite you, next time you play, to not declare actions for your PC, to not make choices for the PC, and see exactly how much the character does on it's own. You being surprised by what you decided in no way means the imaginary construct of the character made a choice. By the way, this isn't a trap argument -- there's not something waiting to go, "aha, now you agree there's no character agency, you have to also accept...." I like looking at where moments of agency exist in rulesets, not because it's a way to make some games better or worse than others, but because the game is where the agency is. If you can point at those moments, you can better understand how to bring any given game system to bear on them in a way that improves the experience. Or find out what doesn't work, and avoid that. Either way, clearly analyzing where and how agency exists can only make playing a given game better. More agency isn't better -- it's different. Players in Blades enjoy more agency in lots of ways, but that comes at the cost of having to do more of the work to make the game play. If you can see that, and know that, then you can get more out of Blades. If you don't, you can still get lucky. Neither outcome is any defense against just not enjoying the game, though, and that's a valid response. [/QUOTE]

Verification