Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 9100201" data-attributes="member: 6795602">I don't think 'adding to the fiction directly' is the best description for narrative play.  (It can be a fairly misleading one IMO).But I agree that regardless of the precise description - that narrative play is being treated as having a kind of player agency that D&D play doesn't have.  That's something I agree with.It's just I think everyone agrees D&D play is better than narrative play when it comes to certain other things and can even support some play styles that narrative play cannot - and yet for whatever reason those things don't get viewed as agency and I think they should.  (To be clear - It's also true that narrative play is better at narrative play type things than D&D is).To me the kinds of things that [USER=6816042]@Arilyn[/USER] mentioned that D&D was good at were all kinds of agency.  Some examples from Arilyn's post:1.  Agency of discovering plot hooks2.  Agency of Solving mysteries in a traditional fashion3.  Agency of exploring ruins or a strange dark forest that the GM has created4.  Agency of free role play without the need to be guided by dice rolls, which can be disruptive.5.  Agency of having stretches without the constant pressure and busyness of PbtA gamesI challenge anyone to tell me why these things shouldn't be described as Player Agency.Additionally, do Narrative games support all of these types of Player Agency?</blockquote>