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: 9103603" data-attributes="member: 6790260">In this case, they absolutely do.Thing 1 intentionally only offers A-type features. It offers as many of them as it can, but it only offers those. It intentionally excludes all B-type features; they are simply not available, no matter what.Thing 2 offers both A-type and B-type features. It offers no fewer A-type features than Thing 1 does. It also offers B-type features. In some cases, these things may combinatorially interact, but at rock bottom, no A-type features are excluded.In what way can you possibly argue that Thing 1 could offer more features?We have already recognized and dealt with the "not all choices are agency!" retort. Yes--they need to be distinct, meaningful choices. An infinitude of indistinguishable choices do not add agency, but we are not talking about an infinitude of indistinguishable choices. An infinitude of meaningless choices do not add agency, but we are not talking about an infinitude of meaningless choices. We are talking about the very clear, overt inclusion of a new arena for agency to play out in. How can adding something that is clearly meaningful (since, as [USER=7040616]@Raiztt[/USER] has clearly shown, it matters to many players whether those options are in or out!) and something that is clearly distinct (since they clearly see a difference between player-agency and character-agency, and most folks here clearly agree!) in any way fail to provide more agency?And you are correct. People in narrative games can't just declare whatever they want. The only people who have said otherwise are those criticizing the very existence of narrative games, or claiming that there is absolutely no difference in agency between those games and "trad" games or whatever else. The limits are different--and they are wider. Because player agency =/= character agency--a thing Raiztt values very highly, due to not wanting player agency, not even a whisper of it--and some games include the former without any reduction to the latter.It is difficult to realize something incorrect, so no, I don't "realize" that.Gronan's point is that GMs suffer under a terrible burden of players being mean to them, which is ridiculous. GMs, purely by being GMs, are in a self-appointed position of power, authority over others. That power comes with responsibilities. Among them, dealing with the interests of those whom they claim to have power over. If one cannot accept that responsibility, one should not be laying claim to that authority in the first place.This has nothing to do with me accusing Gronan, or anyone else, of any kind of misbehavior. It is me calling out the idea that the powerful need to be shielded from the criticism of those over whom they claim power.</blockquote>

Verification