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: 9108571" data-attributes="member: 6790260">So...you do realize that this analogy also fits the same pattern, right?Like let's talk Tolkien here. I think we can agree he knew a thing or two about story writing. And he very specifically wrote about the "just a dream" trope...and why it is inappropriate in most (not all, but most) cases. And it's pretty damning here, taken from his seminal "<a href="https://uh.edu/fdis/_taylor-dev/readings/tolkien.html#:~:text=The%20realm%20of%20fairy%2Dstory,sorrow%20as%20sharp%20as%20swords." target="_blank">On Fairy-Stories</a>":This perfectly comports with what I have been describing. (Unless, of course, you would like to demand of Mr. Tolkien a unit of faerie-taleness. Kilo-pixies? Milli-elvums? What would sound most derisive, do you think?) The notion that it is not totally fictive. In this case, that fictive-or-not question is wholly contained within the fictional world itself.And yes. I do feel the magic of a trick is ruined when I know precisely how it works, especially if it only works by some weird prop design or the like. Skillful sleight of hand is less susceptible (not immune, just less prone) to this issue, mostly because being walked through how one specific instance of it worked does not mean I now know how all of it did. But there is a key difference here: again, we even call these things magic tricks. It's literally in the name.We don't do that with illusionism. It presents itself earnestly as being the real deal. Yes, magicians practice their stagecraft and presentation, but it is an open secret that no magic is actually involved. The illusionism GM, on the other hand, not only pretends that there really, truly IS agency involved, she actively prevents players from ever finding out it isn't involved. Sometimes to the point of lying to their faces (see: Matt Colville pre-rolling dice to get the value he needs so he can point to it later and act like the result was out of his hands.) Usually, however, it just involves intentionally misleading but not technically outrightly false statements so as to deceive. If asked point blank, she is put in a terribly difficult position, as she must choose between honesty (and thus potentially revealing that the joy a player felt previously was in fact hollow, poisoning all future such joy and banking a large amount of player distrust!) or further deception (and thus overtly telling an outright lie, rather than simply being deceptive and misleading.) Or she could refuse to answer, I suppose, but I don't think most players asking such a question would take kindly to a total refusal to answer.The point is that I am talking about something that is clearly a relationship between two people, in one case (alleged/potential) lovers, in the other, player character and game master.That relationship can be sincere, or not. It can also feature participants feeling or believing certain things, or not, including beliefs about the other person. An individual's feelings and beliefs are naturally subjective. But those beliefs may, or may not, correspond to the reality of the relationship. Correspondence is yet another objective thing which cannot be "measured" and yet we compare such things all the time.This. For the love of God, this.Has anyone done that?Has even one person said that?Quote the posts. Show me where someone said that player-agency is simply superior. I'll wait.Completely agreed. Especially the bolded bit. The amount of flagrant disrespect in this thread is staggering.I have literally said this already, giving specific, concrete examples in a recent post, and more general references in prior posts. I mentioned influence on tone and thematic content (e.g. sexuality) very specifically, and included tools used for making it easier and more effective for players to express that agency. Because, as it turns out, sometimes there are better tools than a full-on face to face conversation in a public place, when the topic in question is sensitive and emotionally charged.Yes, I sincerely believe we do. Not only does it help folks like me clearly avoid games I don't want to play and which would be a very bad fit for me and seek out games that may be a much better fit, it also helps people like [USER=7040616]@Raiztt[/USER] in the same way, just flipped turnwise. They do not want "player agency." To include it would be damaging to their fun. Hence, being able to say, "I prefer a lower agency game" is, in fact, quite a useful thing to be able to say.Not at all. Or at least my intent has nothing to do with that. It has to do with recognizing a meaningful difference in the structure and methods of play, which can directly affect the enjoyment of participants in both directions, some having more fun with more agency, others more fun with less.Okay? This seems a non-sequitur. I don't see how the presence or absence of consensus is relevant to the question of whether it can be useful to speak of game systems as offering/enabling/supporting (whatever term you prefer) more instances or varieties of agency than other systems. As stated, folks in this thread who do not like "player agency" (they themselves used this term) are more happy with systems that do not offer it. Hence, in terms at least of forms or varieties of agency, these players prefer fewer, not more.</blockquote>

Verification