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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Pedantic" data-source="post: 9105038" data-attributes="member: 6690965">It's a quite repetitive and occasionally self-contradictory. The author was clearly quite earnest in their approach to the subject, but not a particularly engaging writer. Overall, I didn't find it particularly controversial. The one point it couldn't seem to settled on was calling out the ability the change your appearance as not particularly meaningful, and then praising aesthetic choice (particularly in roleplaying games) many times over.I think this is the most relevant definition they offer and honestly I quite like it as a simple summary.The author undervalues ludic agency and has a slightly strange "event" based view of agency, more as if it's something that's activated in the moment of a decision and then disappears:I don't know that I agree with "agency" as a moment of experience like it suggests (also earlier in a section about "negative agency") so much as general property that a player experiences or doesn't. Perhaps more broadly, I don't a design would be well served by adding a specific instance or event of "increased agency" when the ability should be reflected in the underlying gameplay loop.This bit bothered me because it's a quite archaic view of tabletop games (presumably meaning board games here). Players of such games very rarely change rules, especially on the fly, and modern games are usually designed sufficiently tightly that you generally wouldn't want to. If anything, the more limited set of available actions and design tools makes a stronger case that you will end up having the game-experience the designer created.</blockquote>

Verification