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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 9113199" data-attributes="member: 6795602">I have a few specific things to add - but before I get into them I agree with your basic point - some degree of knowledge is needed in order to have agency.IMO - Story Now/Narrative/whatever we call that style of game explicitly tells the GM to ensure whatever fiction is introduced foremast speaks to the characters dramatic needs with the additional constraint that the introduced fiction doesn't contradict any already established fiction.  There's a world of difference in that and in basing decisions solely on the fictional positioning and understanding of the NPC's involved.For a single moment in time this sounds accurate enough.  Except there's a few caveats1.  You still don't know precisely what the consequence of failing will be, just a general notion of how severe it will be and the probability it will occur.2.  Any resource based system to affect die rolls actually causes one to be faced with extremely minimal information around whether you should use that resource now or save it for later.3.  While you may know the probabilities for all outcomes for this particular moment you don't actually have quality information outside this moment.  How many successes must you accomplish the BitD score?  What will each particular one be for?  So in relation to what matters - a BitD player and D&D 5e player both have about the same amount of info around what it will take to achieve their short term/long term goals at any given moment of play - virtually none.4. If I were to say some game processes provided more agency than others - i'd definitely say a 5e D&D players ability to explore and ultimately leverage the fictional position to completely bypass die rolls to achieve his goals is more agency than simply expending resources to modify die rolls to give him a higher chance of rolling for success.I understand your perspective here - but I think there's a better one that's gained by looking at more than just what is constrained.It's true that if I establish X that you can't establish not X.  That's certainly a valid constraint.  But it's also true that if I had not established X, there are many Y's you wouldn't have been able to establish.  A simple example: X = I attack you.  Y = You Dodge the attack.  If I never attacked you, then in most games you wouldn't be able to establish that you dodged my attack.In short - one participant establishing fiction doesn't just constrain the other participants - it also opens other options they wouldn't have had without doing so.NOTE: all uses of 'you' except the obvious are the 'general you'.</blockquote>

Verification