Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Pedantic" data-source="post: 9081678" data-attributes="member: 6690965">Less agency over the fiction certainly. But, consider an explicated process for say, breaking into a neighboring room in a hotel in a 3.5 D&amp;D vs. FATE. D&amp;D has several spells that might be valuable, say, meld into stone, warp wood and passwall, all of which have a specific process that will output different board states. The lock could be picked, the wall could be broken, an employee could be impersonated, all of which have different and specified resolutions.FATE has a much less specific relationship between a skill check and a given outcome, and the complicating factor of aspects, which might be as effective as allowing a player to announce they have a room key or are invited in in exchange for the same resource (a FATE point).Because the actions in FATE lead to less divergent board states, there is less of what I've been calling &quot;ludic agency.&quot; Player's choices have less variability in their impact on the desired outcome; most actions will contribute pretty equally to victory and the distance between victory and the current board state is less variable, giving the players less room to adopt variable strategies, and less impact for a &quot;good&quot; or &quot;bad&quot; choice in how they approach the problem.More agency to influence the fiction provides less agency in the &quot;game&quot; or &quot;mini-game&quot; of solving a giving problem.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Pedantic, post: 9081678, member: 6690965"] Less agency [I]over the fiction [/I]certainly. But, consider an explicated process for say, breaking into a neighboring room in a hotel in a 3.5 D&D vs. FATE. D&D has several spells that might be valuable, say, [I]meld into stone, warp wood [/I]and [I]passwall, [/I]all of which have a specific process that will output different board states. The lock could be picked, the wall could be broken, an employee could be impersonated, all of which have different and specified resolutions. FATE has a much less specific relationship between a skill check and a given outcome, and the complicating factor of aspects, which might be as effective as allowing a player to announce they have a room key or are invited in in exchange for the same resource (a FATE point). Because the actions in FATE lead to less divergent board states, there is less of what I've been calling "ludic agency." Player's choices have less variability in their impact on the desired outcome; most actions will contribute pretty equally to victory and the distance between victory and the current board state is less variable, giving the players less room to adopt variable strategies, and less impact for a "good" or "bad" choice in how they approach the problem. More agency to influence the fiction provides less agency in the "game" or "mini-game" of solving a giving problem. [/QUOTE]

Verification