Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="bloodtide" data-source="post: 9111754" data-attributes="member: 6684958">I did say you have to remove your own definition of 'joint'.&nbsp; Even more so if your only definition of 'joint' is the game must have special rules that make you as a player feel good.Just trying to wrap my head around your long, overly complicated example.&nbsp; I'm not sure if your just doing the massive info dump to hide your use of 'agency' in the game.&nbsp; You game example describes a game where the players have special rules in the game book they can use &quot;for agency&quot;.&nbsp; Though, from your examples, I don't SEE any agency.&nbsp; But maybe I'm reading things wrong?&nbsp; A lot of your examples are:&nbsp; 1.Player surprises GM with a rule usage.&nbsp; 2.Player makes an offical game rule roll and success. 3. GM then....er....sort of, kind of...does &quot;something&quot; at least vaguely related to that role and the rules used......BUT really the GM does does whatever they want to...like any other RPG...EXCEPT they have to FOOL the player into thinking they did &quot;something&quot;&nbsp; ONLY because of the players rule use and roll.&nbsp; 4.So after the roll, the GM just says whatever.....and the player happily dances around the table because they think and more so feel they have 'agency' in the game.But really, I just don't get it.I'm not sure how the GM giving out information is &quot;player agency&quot;.&nbsp; But that definition....my game gives out at least twice the information of a standard game (three times if a player can be bothered to read anything).&nbsp; So guess my game is &quot;high agency&quot; as the (good) players know a lot of information.Then you go on to say it was &quot;good agency&quot; because rolls decided a bunch of actions.....I guess you were saying here is that you like roll playing over role playing LITERALLY because it takes 'power/control' AWAY from the GM.&nbsp; And that is Fascinating...</blockquote>

[QUOTE="bloodtide, post: 9111754, member: 6684958"] I did say you have to remove your own definition of 'joint'. Even more so if your only definition of 'joint' is the game must have special rules that make you as a player feel good. Just trying to wrap my head around your long, overly complicated example. I'm not sure if your just doing the massive info dump to hide your use of 'agency' in the game. You game example describes a game where the players have special rules in the game book they can use "for agency". Though, from your examples, I don't SEE any agency. But maybe I'm reading things wrong? A lot of your examples are: 1.Player surprises GM with a rule usage. 2.Player makes an offical game rule roll and success. 3. GM then....er....sort of, kind of...does "something" at least vaguely related to that role and the rules used......BUT really the GM does does whatever they want to...like any other RPG...EXCEPT they have to FOOL the player into thinking they did "something" ONLY because of the players rule use and roll. 4.So after the roll, the GM just says whatever.....and the player happily dances around the table because they think and more so feel they have 'agency' in the game. But really, I just don't get it. I'm not sure how the GM giving out information is "player agency". But that definition....my game gives out at least twice the information of a standard game (three times if a player can be bothered to read anything). So guess my game is "high agency" as the (good) players know a lot of information. Then you go on to say it was "good agency" because rolls decided a bunch of actions.....I guess you were saying here is that you like roll playing over role playing LITERALLY because it takes 'power/control' AWAY from the GM. And that is Fascinating... [/QUOTE]

Verification