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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Golroc" data-source="post: 9112856" data-attributes="member: 7042497">I acknowledge different styles and systems have different levels and kinds of agency. However, the term "low player agency" is derogatory and should be used with care. Voluntary lack of agency is associated with passivity, submissiveness and low intelligence in many cultures. A player who is not interested in narrative agency, but cares about rollplay, character creation or even just interaction at the table is not "low agency" by definition. It is perfectly possible to combine low narrative agency with a highly interactive and expressive experience. I have seen it.We can discuss agency and even how certain systems are high on (potential) agency compared to others, but let's please stay away from categorizing players in the same manner.People who watch sports instead of participating do not have lower agency. They do not prefer "low agency activity". (And the distinctions for rogs are even less extreme than this)There's great value in the discussion about how different systems and styles enable, codify, support and promote various kinds of sgency, even to someone like me who is skeptical about games with a focus on joint creation of fiction. You have actually piqued my interest, for what that's worth. But when I read posts categorizing players in somewhat unflattering language, I am right back feeling skeptical. I know this isn't about my feelings. But let's please remember that agency in the context of a system/table and the same in context of individuals have very different connotations.Sorry for the ranty outburst, but I was surprised at some of what I read.</blockquote>

Verification