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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6589290" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I don't mean to butt in (but I will!), but I've got a second so I think I'll try to clarify this (not assuming it will mean anything to either of you).So why do we (meaning the consensus RPG position) rebel so violently against the "rocks fall, you die" paradigm?  It is simply a matter of agency.  In this case, player agency.  Player agency in Narrative systems (I would say) is typically defined by the capacity for a player to make thematically-impactful decisions on behalf of their characters.  If theme or premise is uninvolved, then a decision ceases to be impactful from a thematic perspective and agency becomes irrelevant.  Alternatively, if the situation is thematically-impactful, and the agency of a player's, alleged, thematic decision is subordinated entirely to an unthinking/unfeeling deterministic process, and/or GM Force, then we can qualitatively evaluate the diminished nature of that agency.For player agency in a Gamist system, sub thematically for strategically and/or tactically in the above paragraph.For a hybrid of the two, include all three (and reconcile the tension, if any, where required, by prioritizing one slightly more than the other).This is why the "all roads lead to Rome", "railroading", "rocks fall > you die" deals are "things" in RPGs.  That qualitative evaluation of the nature of diminished player agency is why we discuss and have opinions on them.  Well, at least it is certainly why I discuss and have an opinion on them!  It is certainly why I have a negative opinion of GM Force and Illusionism in games where the social contract stipulates that player agency is important!</blockquote>

Verification