Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Emerikol" data-source="post: 7331145" data-attributes="member: 6698278">I think Pemerton that we are all arguing because we define agency differently.&nbsp; I agree 100% that player agency over the &quot;shared fiction&quot; or the &quot;campaign setting&quot; is low in my style of game.&nbsp; The player can choose to affect it though by making choices which really do impact the setting.&nbsp;&nbsp; In your bribe example above, I'd have defined the NPC well enough to make a fair roll on their chances to get what they want.&nbsp; It would be unsatisfying for someone like me to just say the guy accepts my bribe.&nbsp; The pc's though could at that moment choose to kill the guy and assuming they can it happens.&nbsp; The world changes.&nbsp; That guy is dead now.I think dungeons while maybe not strictly Gygaxian as you claim (though I think your idea of Gygaxian dungeons is a bit of a strawman anyway) are still being played today in a skill based way.&nbsp; The group cooperatively tries to beat the dungeon.&nbsp; And I'm using dungeon here to represent any adventure the players choose to take up in the sandbox.&nbsp;&nbsp; I think though Gygax himself would say that if players leave the dungeon that they should not have an expectation that the dungeon is static and does not change as a result of their first foray.&nbsp; I also am not aware that it is a room by room game.&nbsp; I'm sure inexperienced players do all sorts of bad things but that is not a criticism of the style.&nbsp; My monsters are not dumb (unless of course they are in the world) and will rally to the sounds of battle and/or flee when they feel the situation is desperate.In an attempt to be fair, I usually determine action plans for the monsters ahead of time to prevent me being influenced by how the game is going for the PC's.&nbsp; So if my action plans put the monsters in a bad way because the PC's are smart they are rewarded.&nbsp; I don't change the plan out from under their feet.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Emerikol, post: 7331145, member: 6698278"] I think Pemerton that we are all arguing because we define agency differently. I agree 100% that player agency over the "shared fiction" or the "campaign setting" is low in my style of game. The player can choose to affect it though by making choices which really do impact the setting. In your bribe example above, I'd have defined the NPC well enough to make a fair roll on their chances to get what they want. It would be unsatisfying for someone like me to just say the guy accepts my bribe. The pc's though could at that moment choose to kill the guy and assuming they can it happens. The world changes. That guy is dead now. I think dungeons while maybe not strictly Gygaxian as you claim (though I think your idea of Gygaxian dungeons is a bit of a strawman anyway) are still being played today in a skill based way. The group cooperatively tries to beat the dungeon. And I'm using dungeon here to represent any adventure the players choose to take up in the sandbox. I think though Gygax himself would say that if players leave the dungeon that they should not have an expectation that the dungeon is static and does not change as a result of their first foray. I also am not aware that it is a room by room game. I'm sure inexperienced players do all sorts of bad things but that is not a criticism of the style. My monsters are not dumb (unless of course they are in the world) and will rally to the sounds of battle and/or flee when they feel the situation is desperate. In an attempt to be fair, I usually determine action plans for the monsters ahead of time to prevent me being influenced by how the game is going for the PC's. So if my action plans put the monsters in a bad way because the PC's are smart they are rewarded. I don't change the plan out from under their feet. [/QUOTE]

Verification