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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 9097931" data-attributes="member: 42582">Some players move from rugby to American football to Australian Rules football. But I think few players move from rugby to cricket. Why is that? The explanation is found in a comparison of how the games are played, what sorts of skills and abilities they require, etc.Cricket is more like baseball than it is like football. This is because of features like bowling/pitching and batting; the setting of a field; running after hitting the ball; etc.Field hockey and soccer can be compared in many respects, and we can look at ways in which (say) soccer more closely resembles hockey or more closely resembles Australian Rules.Etc.Even when it come to scores, we can in fact compare particular games as being (for instance) high scoring or low scoring, and relate this to factors like team ability, weather (a wet ground can make for low scores), etc. We can also compare whether games are systematically high scoring and fast in play (say, basketball and Australian Rules) or involve less frequent scoring and "slower" play (eg rubgy). We can also compare the degree to which play might be fast yet scoring low, and consider why that is the case (eg soccer).I'm quite satisfied that agency can be compared in the ways I'm comparing it. That satisfaction arises from having had the various experiences I'm describing - experiences of agency - and comparing them.Well, generally if someone isn't very familiar with a thing, that is a reason to be doubtful about their opinion of a thing. Isn't it?Suppose that a particular RPGer had only ever played DL-style railroads, and did not even know that any other sort of RPGing was possible. Why would I regard that person's view as to what sort of player agency might be possible, in RPGing, as having much value?Conjecture is not always worthless. But generally valuable conjecture follows from some degree of familiarity with whatever is being conjectured about. Someone who tells me that it is impossible to compare (say) the Prince Valiant scenario The Crimson Bull to (say) the AD&D module Dead Gods is making a ridiculous claim. I've read both scenarios. I can tell you, in some detail if you like, what it is that makes one a masterpiece that supports high player agency despite its intricate, and temporally unfolding, framing; and what makes the other, as written, an utter railroad. Not only is the comparison possible, but it's very illuminating, both of Jerry D Grayson's talent for scenario design and also about quite subtle possibilities in scenario design that are often ignored in discussions of what is and is not a railroad.But given that our hobby has a word for particularly low-agency play - railroad - and that there have been essays discussing the degree of player agency for almost as long as the hobby has existed (I think I already mentioned Lewis Pulsipher's White Dwarf articles from the late 1970s), comparisons of player agency across different approaches to play is manifestly not something that doesn't make sense.</blockquote>

Verification