Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Reynard" data-source="post: 9144254" data-attributes="member: 467">I'm not sure how you got to players not having agency to burn down a building. We were talking about the world builder intentionally building in a mechanism to break the setting in relatively short order. That was the thesis. It seems a stretch to suggest that not giving the PCs access to a world breaking switch somehow robs them of agency.This appears to be an example of taking every argument to the extreme. My saying &quot;I want the setting to be robust enough to survive each campaign so the next campaign can also take place in the setting&quot; became &quot;the goal is to preserve the GM's fiction over playability (which is a euphemism for player agency in this context)&quot; with no reason to interpret it that way.To wrangle this back on topic, though, let's talk about how world building intersects with player agency. Good world building, I think, provides lots of things for PCs to do and places for them to go, thereby granting players agency over choices of &quot;adventures.&quot; The world can't really offer unlimited choices of things to do and places to go, because the world is whatever the world is, and the PCs hold whatever position in the world they hold with whatever capabilities that implies. This relates back to the &quot;limitations&quot; discussion earlier in the thread, which we can hopefully not rehash.There are other kinds of player agency, but those are beyond the scope of this discussion (and there are already very long threads about it).</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Reynard, post: 9144254, member: 467"] I'm not sure how you got to players not having agency to burn down a building. We were talking about the world builder intentionally building in a mechanism to break the setting in relatively short order. That was the thesis. It seems a stretch to suggest that not giving the PCs access to a world breaking switch somehow robs them of agency. This appears to be an example of taking every argument to the extreme. My saying "I want the setting to be robust enough to survive each campaign so the next campaign can also take place in the setting" became "the goal is to preserve the GM's fiction over playability (which is a euphemism for player agency in this context)" with no reason to interpret it that way. To wrangle this back on topic, though, let's talk about how world building intersects with player agency. Good world building, I think, provides lots of things for PCs to do and places for them to go, thereby granting players agency over choices of "adventures." The world can't really offer unlimited choices of things to do and places to go, because the world is whatever the world is, and the PCs hold whatever position in the world they hold with whatever capabilities that implies. This relates back to the "limitations" discussion earlier in the thread, which we can hopefully not rehash. There are other kinds of player agency, but those are beyond the scope of this discussion (and there are already very long threads about it). [/QUOTE]

Verification