NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="hawkeyefan" data-source="post: 9118615" data-attributes="member: 6785785">See, there are actually games that work on zero or little prep. Nothing else about what you're describing here really applies to me or the other GMs I know. I mean, we're there to hang out as well, but the main focus is the game. Even in a typically prep-heavy game like D&D, I don't personally tend to prep as much as other folks. This isn't because my game is casual or anything.... it's intentional because I like the players to influence the game as much as possible. The more I prepare, the less likely they are to do so, generally speaking.Imagine if you didn't need to decide everything ahead of play. There are blank spots that need to be defined during play, and there are processes for determining that. I mean, a Random Encounter table is a pretty classic example. It removes the need for the DM to decide the location of every denizen of a dungeon at all times, and places pressure on the players to take action instead of lingering in areas. There are ways to apply this kind of process to other elements of play. Sometimes, these kinds of processes can involve the players or ideas that they've brought into play. Right. So there you go... you place little or no priority on collaboration or player agency. That's pretty much all that folks are talking about. Games that are set up for more collaboration. That tends to allow for more player agency. If you can understand that folks like collaboration more than you, that's all you really need to know. Yes, and then you criticize the post for the things you added. So, it's not really a criticism of the post... it's a criticism of your own take on the post, which is clearly flawed. It depends on the game. I don't know what rule you have in mind or what game, or why you think it's a "tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny window to attempt to do something". Nor does everyone play the game in a way that it's always subject to the GM's whim. I think that even just within D&D, there are degrees of agency much more significant than what you're describing. I expect that my game of D&D allows for much more player agency than yours, for instance. And then my campaign of Spire allowed for much more than my D&D. So, no, I think you're quite wrong on this. But maybe we can get somewhere with this. Can you offer an example from play where a player in one of your games exercised agency in a meaningful way? No, not really. My take on player agency that "it's when a player gets to say what happens and not the GM, with support of the rules" applies to a good chunk of most games. Barring some BS about "the GM can veto anything" and similar rule zero type stuff, the rules tell us who gets to say what happens. When the player gets to say, that's an instance of agency. This can be an attack roll or a skill check or the use of a feat or spell or ability or (gasp!) background feature. If the rules are honored, and the dice go the player's way, what they wanted to happen, happens. There are more mechanics and processes that allow this than those offered by D&D.</blockquote>

Verification