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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 9095444" data-attributes="member: 82106">I think this represents a common confusion between agency and agenda. Different tables/players/games may have different agendas, that is what they desire to get out of play, what they enjoy, varies (or what the game is designed to give). Agency OTOH is a pretty specific set thing, and I have no problem with the dictionary definition here:"the capacity, condition, or state of acting or of exerting power : a person or thing through which power is exerted or an end is achieved" - Mirriam-WebsterWhen used in the possessive sense, as a descriptor, as in "I don't have any agency", it clearly indicates that the possessor of this trait or thing has the capacity, condition, or state necessary for acting or exerting power, and is thus in some sense "a person or thing through which power is exerted." There are not 'types' of agency, though certainly I agree it can be exercised in respect of different 'capacities'. When we discuss games with different agendas, then yes, it seems true that different players will be more or less concerned with agency over different "conditions, or states of acting." One might simply wish to use her character as a viewpoint pawn to explore different areas of another person's constructed setting; another might wish to arrange a drama exploring his character's persona and how it operates and evolves in the face of adverse conditions. They will certainly find different 'capacities' in which they will desire to exercise their agency, but it is still fundamentally the same thing they are exercising, as I see it.I can see what you are saying. I think there's a further observation here, which is that narrativist play wouldn't work if you didn't have all the sorts of agency that a sandbox does, and then more. I mean, I guess I could theoretically imagine a narrativist RPG with adequate agency in which the PCs have no freedom of movement, but they would simply require some other equally potent ability to make general narrative choices. Sandboxes are a bit more specific construction that, definitionally, foregrounds place, but place is also almost always vital in narrativist play as well.I'm not sure I would center things on your 'resolution of premises'. Maybe I'm not sure what exactly you are trying to convey by that. I would just point out that the blog in question is pretty clear about its two points. These are not 'kinds of agency', they are agenda (in rough form at least)! To play with respect to human issues, and to allow the players freedom to go in the directions where questions about those issues lead, those are the traits of narrativist games. In order to do so, the players need agency in several capacities, like freedom to move into fictional positions which are relevant to the human issues at question, and the agency to design characters who will represent various positions with respect to those issues. The agency to declare certain types of resolutions may also be important depending on the premises of the specific game. I'm thinking here of Agon, a game where the PCs explore the nature of heroism, where any player can win any one given contest by simply declaring, during the recitation of the outcome, "I give my life to succeed." (presumably you say how). Most RPGs don't include this feature, but it adds a nice dimension to Agon, even if you are not going to exercise that option very often.Again, I think your formulation is OK, I do understand it. OTOH it can lead to some sorts of confusion and it might be better to differentiate more clearly between agency and agenda.</blockquote>

Verification