Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Snarf Zagyg" data-source="post: 9081451" data-attributes="member: 7023840">See, on this I don't agree.The distinction is that we are using this nebulous term (agency) in ways that are not accurate in terms of the play. Let's use an easy-to-understand example. Zeno: The rules say your sword causes d8 damage.Achilles: No. My sword causes 3d00 damage.Zeno: Um ... no? Achilles: HOW DARE YOU RESTRICT MAH AGENCY!I know, I know, it's silly. How about this?Zeno: Okay, everyone ready for an exciting game of Blades?Achilles: Yeah! Now, I jump over the moon! Ima author me some fiction!Zeno: Um, that's not exactly what it means ....Achilles: HOW DARE YOU RESTRICT MAH AGENCY!!!!!The reason these examples should seem absurd is because they are absurd. When we talk about player agency, we are necessarily discussing it within the context of a game- within the context of the rules of the game (both the game rules qua rules as well as the second-order design, aka the expected style of play). Once people start to compare player agency between different types of games, it immediately breaks down. Talking about &quot;increased player agency&quot; in a game that explicitly allows players to create the fiction is not actually about player agency; it's just about players having authority (either through rules or style of play) to author fiction. That's not &quot;agency,&quot; it's just a different way of using the rules. That's why these conversations are unproductive. DMs don't have more &quot;player agency&quot; in D&amp;D than in other games, because that's not even the correct way to look at it. Instead, it's better to think of it in terms of the different roles (vis-a-vis authority over fiction) in terms of games, and the benefits and drawbacks to those approaches. As soon as you start trying to introduce &quot;player agency&quot; as a ranking system between games, you end up in useless discussions.IMO, IME, etc.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Snarf Zagyg, post: 9081451, member: 7023840"] See, on this I don't agree. The distinction is that we are using this nebulous term (agency) in ways that are not accurate in terms of the play. Let's use an easy-to-understand example. Zeno: The rules say your sword causes d8 damage. Achilles: No. My sword causes 3d00 damage. Zeno: Um ... no? Achilles: HOW DARE YOU RESTRICT MAH AGENCY! I know, I know, it's silly. How about this? Zeno: Okay, everyone ready for an exciting game of Blades? Achilles: Yeah! Now, I jump over the moon! Ima author me some fiction! Zeno: Um, that's not exactly what it means .... Achilles: HOW DARE YOU RESTRICT MAH AGENCY!!!!! The reason these examples should seem absurd is because they are absurd. When we talk about player agency, we are necessarily discussing it within the context of a game- within the context of the [I]rules of the game[/I] (both the game rules [I]qua[/I] rules as well as the second-order design, aka the expected style of play). Once people start to compare player agency [I]between different types of games[/I], it immediately breaks down. Talking about "increased player agency" in a game that explicitly allows players to create the fiction is not actually about player agency; it's just about players having authority (either through rules or style of play) to author fiction. That's not "agency," it's just a different way of using the rules. That's why these conversations are unproductive. DMs don't have more "player agency" in D&D than in other games, because that's not even the correct way to look at it. Instead, it's better to think of it in terms of the different roles (vis-a-vis authority over fiction) in terms of games, and the benefits and drawbacks to those approaches. As soon as you start trying to introduce "player agency" as a ranking system between games, you end up in useless discussions. IMO, IME, etc. [/QUOTE]

Verification