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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="EzekielRaiden" data-source="post: 9101220" data-attributes="member: 6790260">The problem here is, this "clear absolutely everything through me first" is the removal of agency. Above, I referenced how the standard conception (note this is not the same as "theory"--different theories share this same conception) of agency includes both that an action must be intentional and that anyone claiming to be an agent must initiate the action. If an action is truly, purely accidental, lacking any intention--frex, a sleepwalker--then very few would argue the actor had agency, even though they did in fact act. But that condition is not sufficient alone. You are recognizing the player's intent, which is one of the necessary things, but taking away their ability to initiate. They merely provide suggestions; you initiate the action. Hence, you are exerting agency. The player is--to use the above analogy--a passenger along for the ride.In some contexts, being a passenger is a wonderful thing. In others, it is not. But it is not the same as actually driving the vehicle.Notice, here, who is actually taking actions. The player playing the criminal sorcerer trying to pay off a debt is not acting. You are acting. You are including elements. You are determining what situations will arise, what values will be put to the test and exactly which conflicts will test them. You have agency. The criminal-sorcerer player does not.Leaving the unfortunate phrasing aside, then: Insufficient data for meaningful answer, if I am to restrict myself to only that original statement and nothing else. Based on your follow-up statements, like the previous quote, I am forced to conclude that I as a player do not really have much agency. I can describe my character. I am completely dependent on you for any of that description to actually matter in any way, shape, or form. You drive the conflict for the character, I simply provide suggestions for what you could choose to do. I can show intention--obviously, since I chose Dogsbody Jongleur or whatever else as my BG/class combo--but I cannot initiate anything. Only you can do that.It seems to me that the issue is not that he did not trust, as shown in the quote below. It is that he did, and that trust was not respected in kind. Or, in other words, his criticism is that talk is cheap. Which is both a perfectly valid criticism, and an extremely important one when someone is asking for you to give them extensive and significant authority. Trust is not something a person can just infinitely demand. They must show they are worthy of it. Trustworthy, you might say.Pithily: "Talk is cheap.: With a side of, "Actions speak louder than words."Oooor it's a question of whether people actually deliver on the stuff they claim to? Which seems quite a bit more relevant when one side is claiming that something will happen.Do you not see how this means it is the DM in the driver's seat, and the player is restricted to "passenger who can make suggestions"?Nothing occurs without full DM clearance and being (secretly) prepared, well in advance. It is impossible to actually point the fiction toward something yourself. Impossible to instigate a conflict, to put the things one values to the test, without first (a) getting approval from the DM and (b) having the DM prepare a situation for that conflict, that test, to occur within.</blockquote>

Verification