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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 9097349" data-attributes="member: 71699">It's not clear why one wouldn't just use the label "chance" in these examples. Casino-goers would actually say that roulette has more chance than blackjack. Action or intervention producing a particular effect is descriptive of all the cases, given the differing lusory means. When I play 500, I decide what I will call and play. When I play Roulette, it's down to me what numbers I bet on.Unless the thesis is that agency equates with reduction in chance, in which case to fear that a GM reduced agency would be to suppose a GM's decisions were random. As we don't typically think of human choices as random (and to do so would hard-conflate agency with chance) any mechanic that invokes a dice roll reduces agency more than a GM call does. That is if agency is equivalent to chance.In my Chess example, I was speculating as to the insertion of chance in the case where our prelusory goals and lusory means did not presuppose it. Thus my Chess-like-agency was reduced by imposing that element of chance on me.The above noted, the sort of intuitions that are often connected with neo-trad and narrativist preferences are in an interesting conflict with those that are often connected with FKR. Advocates of the latter sometimes refer to "tactical Infinity", which is the freedom of players to try anything, because the game master has the job of producing a ruling on the fly for anything they try. One blogger wrote thatSome players feel more empowered when the outcomes of what they attempt are up to them ("say yes") or mechanically determined ("or roll the dice")... even if rolling the dice introduces chance that is absent when GM decides. Others players feel more empowered when they can make any play they can think of, because someone has been appointed to make rulings.Reflecting on that, and on my Chess and other examples, perhaps one can define agency like this: the extent to which the agreements I made entering the magic circle are binding on all participants.</blockquote>

Verification