Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="FrogReaver" data-source="post: 9113283" data-attributes="member: 6795602">This is much closer to the kind of thing I've been advocating for.  I think there's a bit missing from those 3 components but I can't quite put my finger on it yet.  Also, #3 isn't quite clear to me.  Still a solid starting point!I'd also suggest that Scenario (including setting) instead of game system is the single biggest determining factor in determining the level of each of those components.  This is why it's relatively easy to talk about how much autonomy, impact and content/thematic influence that players get in various scenarios in D&D 5e.Which ultimately makes comparing these things across game systems very difficult - because 2 games systems generally cannot have identical scenarios - because if for no other reason, mechanics are never fully translatable to a different game.IMO.  All this seems to speak to is the futility of talking about agency in general between games.  We each choose different dimensions, we each value those dimensions differently, etc.I think you were right at the start - that we can meaningfully talk about agency (or better yet, the components of agency) for a specific dimension.  Agreed, though I also think that some dimensions we can generally agree aren't actually very important to talk about of themselves.  Though establishing their existence still can be a useful observation in certain contexts.</blockquote>