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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="niklinna" data-source="post: 9113013" data-attributes="member: 71235">I don't find it a bit derogatory. I use it for games I play in, and for games I GM. I can see how voluntary lack of agency can be associated with passivity, and submissivness, but low intellgence seems like a stretch to me.I can't say I've seen people calling players "low agency". Apart from that, it seems the issue is the use of the phrase "low agency" without context (and as it turns out you get to that later on). Agency exists within some domain of activity (and goals). A player who isn't interested in narrative agency...doesn't care if there's narrative agency (or might want it to be low/absent). A player who's interested in roleplay, character creation, or even just interaction at the table clearly wants agency in those activities. Maybe those two players should play games, and do with groups, that match their preferences (which of course may vary from game to game and group to group).If by this you mean "low agency" without further qualification, then sure. But I'm totally cool with saying I enjoy some games featuring low player agency in terms of establishing goals and framing scenes (as one example), or that I don't enjoy games in which the GM gets to override my dice rolls (as another example). I would not categorize myself as a "low agency" player. In which posts have people claimed players themselves, and in general, are low agency?They absolutely do have lower agency in terms of participating in sports. And they have high agency in terms of watching sports. (And yelling at the TV, of course.)Systems/tables and individuals aren't two separate contexts; they are factors of the single context for any given session/campaign, or activity, to use a broader term. You've raised a fair point about context, however (even though you didn't apply it in the prior quotation), and I have seen it elided from such discussions often enough that I agree it's good to point out.The people who choose to watch the game rather than participate still have no agency over/within the game. After all, they aren't engaged in the activity. The question of agency over/within the game doesn't even apply to them because the context for it doesn't exist—and agency is very much a contextual thing, as you pointed out in your earlier post. What spectators do have agency over is whether or not they will continue to watch the game, which is the activity/context they are engaged/involved in.Anyhow I am done with this thread. <img class="smilie smilie--emoji" alt="🤷" src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f937.png" title="Person shrugging    :person_shrugging:" data-shortname=":person_shrugging:" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" /></blockquote>

Verification