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: 8421250" data-attributes="member: 99817">Let's say I want to run an game where I'm going to create the illusion of agency for the players. Let's say I'm going to create a game where all the important decisions have been scripted by me the GM and that what the players are asked to do is provide some cosplay, a bit of witty dialogue and some combat tactics and dice rolls. however, I'm going to fudge it and stitch it all together to present the game to them as one where their decisions really mattered and impacted the outcomes.To be functional, that game also requires 'High Trust'.In this (and the FKR) usage 'trust' is a one-way street deployed as a demand by the GM of the players. It's not a mutual currency shared around the table equally by all the participants. It's an authoritarian construct rather than a collaborative one.My games require high trust too, but it's a shared trust. A trust from me that everyone is going to bring it, to play with heart and integrity and passion, not to turtle and stonewall and play Mary Sue, to create characters with flaws and responsibilities and vulnerabilities and failings as well as strengths and brilliance, and a shared trust that everyone is in a friendly, happy-go-lucky environment and is comfortable for the game to go where the players collectively take it.I would also note that earlier on I offered to GM in this thread using the FKR playloop for a poster claiming it provided them agency. Obviously, they declined and then stopped responding. However, in one reply they said they were declining because of the 'difference in high trust to low trust playstyle'.Nowhere was there a suggestion that I wouldn't adjudicate their action declarations in accordance with the play loop under discussion.What I wasn't trusted to do was provide the illusion of agency.</blockquote>

Verification