Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="5ekyu" data-source="post: 7501866" data-attributes="member: 6919838">&quot; but I'm talking specifically about player agency in character knowledge and how necessary or not it is on the basis of the system, not any specific mechanic or resolution process around them. &quot;i have no comment on what &quot;player agency&quot; is or does or how it can be construed or defined or redefined etc etc etc. especially when it is divorced from any specifics of process or mechanics. &quot;player agency&quot; is an amorphous buzz word of e term that is like beauty and pornography in the eye of the behold and know when it is seen. I believe that the mechanics to ascertain character knowledge are just as critical to shared authorship and lore games as they are in DnD and other game systems as well. I believe that because in a &quot;role-playing game&quot; I need to know what my character knows in order to play that role, play that character when said knowledge is of import - when it matters. Since those mechanics serve as a determinant for whether or not i can role-play the character it really doesn't matter whether or not that game involves sole-lore-gm or shared world and authorship.RE the door procedures&quot;That sounds absolutely dreadful.&quot;Well, you will notice i did not say &quot;ye **good** olde days&quot;?!?!it was necessary when gaming under keyword-resolution GMs in styles that did not put a lot on the character's skills - treated them more like game pieces than characters. In those games under those Gms the &quot;characters&quot; have different rules much like rooks, bishops and knights do in chess. But what happens in many cases fell on what they player chose to say, what keywords were used... |&quot;did you say your rook looked up?&quot; not much different than &quot;did your rook take e3?&quot; There was never a question that &quot;your knight may decide to move f5 check instead&quot; or that &quot;your scout would have looked up when moving into a large cavern if you did not say so.&quot;Other systems even then gave the &quot;pieces&quot; more &quot;characteristics&quot; and more emphasis on &quot;character&quot; and &quot;role playing&quot; instead of &quot;piece moving.&quot;We moved away from that, and those Gms and that style too, after not all that long overall as other systems and other styles are more &quot;character focused&quot; and deal more with the &quot;character as an entity&quot; than &quot;the character as a chess piece.&quot;never turned back.others may have.but not us.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="5ekyu, post: 7501866, member: 6919838"] " but I'm talking specifically about [I]player agency in character knowledge[/I] and how necessary or not it is on the basis of the system, not any specific mechanic or resolution process around them. " i have no comment on what "player agency" is or does or how it can be construed or defined or redefined etc etc etc. especially when it is divorced from any specifics of process or mechanics. "player agency" is an amorphous buzz word of e term that is like beauty and pornography in the eye of the behold and know when it is seen. I believe that the mechanics to ascertain character knowledge are just as critical to shared authorship and lore games as they are in DnD and other game systems as well. I believe that because in a "role-playing game" I need to know what my character knows in order to play that role, play that character when said knowledge is of import - when it matters. Since those mechanics serve as a determinant for whether or not i can role-play the character it really doesn't matter whether or not that game involves sole-lore-gm or shared world and authorship. RE the door procedures "That sounds absolutely dreadful." Well, you will notice i did not say "ye **good** olde days"?!?! it was necessary when gaming under keyword-resolution GMs in styles that did not put a lot on the character's skills - treated them more like game pieces than characters. In those games under those Gms the "characters" have different rules much like rooks, bishops and knights do in chess. But what happens in many cases fell on what they player chose to say, what keywords were used... |"did you say your rook looked up?" not much different than "did your rook take e3?" There was never a question that "your knight may decide to move f5 check instead" or that "your scout would have looked up when moving into a large cavern if you did not say so." Other systems even then gave the "pieces" more "characteristics" and more emphasis on "character" and "role playing" instead of "piece moving." We moved away from that, and those Gms and that style too, after not all that long overall as other systems and other styles are more "character focused" and deal more with the "character as an entity" than "the character as a chess piece." never turned back. others may have. but not us. [/QUOTE]

Verification