Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Mercurius" data-source="post: 7326090" data-attributes="member: 59082">[MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION], I have to make dinner so will try to simmer this down to essentials for now, but I'm also trying to get at the crux rather than spend energy with endless asides and details.In the campaign style that I'm discussing--I can only speak for myself, but think it is basically representative of "traditional D&D" (not classic)--a PC has just as much agency as you and I have in this world, and even a touch more in that a player gets more of a say in his or her backstory. It is, to use the GNS phrase (although not necessarily in the exact way that Edwards intended), an imaginative simulation.Is that understood? It is not less agency, but actually slightly more. So if you'd characterize this style of game play with "player passivity," then I assume you see yourself and human beings in general as inherently passive, because you and I have less agency than a PC in traditional D&D-style game play (unless we're talking about pre-generated players or other tournament-style requirements, but I think that is a different matter - and one of the reasons I never have played tournaments...I want more agency in character creation!).Based upon what you said in your response, I also assume that you want your gaming experience to not echo the degree of agency you and I have in the real world, but to be something more. Is that correct? In other words, your enjoyment of the RPG experience depends upon you feeling that players have (signficantly) more agency than we do in real life?Which brings me to the crux of the matter. I already alluded to this above, but in addition to GM authority I think the other major difference in the "Pemertonian style" vs. the "traditional style" is the degree to which meta-gaming is part of the experience. In the traditional style, the GM is the creator and storyteller, and the players are actors within the world. The point is to simulate the experience of real life, but in a shared imaginary space. The player "inhabits" the character (or role), and acts as if they are the character within the setting. Thus role-playing.Your approach seems more that of characters as game pawns utilized by the players, who in turn are partially responsible--or at least able to--direct some of the unfolding action in a meta-game sense. This meta-game aspect is, I think, what breaks immersion for me...and it is what broke immersion for me in 4E combat. And I do think the meta-game aspect and (diminished) GM authority correlate to some degree.More later...</blockquote>

Verification