Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7355658" data-attributes="member: 16814">This is a definition of agency, though, so I'm not sure what you're arguing against.  This isn't a critique, it's a clear statement about the fact that you've defined agency for the purposes of your discussion as relating to the content of the shared fiction ONLY.  Every time you use the word agency in this thread without explicit reference otherwise (like the above mention) this is what I'm assuming you mean.  For others not already steeped in GNS theory, Exploration (capital E) means playing the game, not exploring somewhere inside the game.  Forge-speak is opaque at best.  What this is saying in simpler terms is that play focuses on the immediate scene only - there are no bits decided about the next scene until this one is concluded -- and that a focus of play is about some human issue.  That's more opaqueness, as what a 'human issue' is isn't clearly defined by the term, but usually it means something about how people interact and the goals of people.  So, then, the game should focus primarily on the motivations and goals of the characters that are played by the humans playing the game. The bits about the 'now' are kinda loose, though.  The idea is that there isn't a preplanned 'next scene' in story now games, it's only about this scene.  The next scene won't exist until we know how this scene completes, and then the next scene will generate based on how this scene resolved.  So, if you have a 'scene' about negotiating with orcs in a ruined village the next scene can't be created at all until that resolves, and then the next scene would be framed based on the outcome of the negotiation scene.  By this, the fact I had an encounter map for the dungeon under the keep, or even the fact that there was a dungeon under the keep, was not Story Now play because it was determined in advance of the completion of the negotiation scene, which is a no-no.  Had the negotiation scene ended with it having been introduced -- either by players or by the DM in response to a player statement -- that there was a dungeon, then that's now acceptable for a possible next scene (provided that the dungeon naturally flows as the next scene from the previous one). This is why you see so much made of scenes, they are the core unit of play for Story Now. This is also why I've made comments about more broadly focused scenes -- for instance, my play example of the orcs in the ruined village, the orcs in the ruined keep, and the dungeon under the keep were a single, broadly framed scene.  The action is 'how will you resolve finding an anvil here', but the scene isn't immediately framed into crisis onto that question.  Rather, it's set up so that the players have many choices to advance through the scene to answer the question posed -- can we find the anvil? -- and the crisis points aren't hard framed into the scene but allowed to develop through repeated action declarations by the players.  Yes, a lot of prepped material is used, and some of the interactions are asking the DM to reveal more about the scene (read from notes), but the crisis points are generated by the players making action declarations and engaging mechanics until a crisis develops.  In this play example, the first crisis was instated by the players trying to parley with usually hostile orcs.  The second was the fight that occurred due to a failed stealth challenge.  The third was the fight in the dungeon where the mechanics led to the characters failing their attempt to recover the orc warboss.  There will be a few more in the next session as they try again with the consequences of their first failure complicating the attempt.  I, as DM, didn't set any of these crisis points ahead of time - the occurred due to player action declarations and use of mechanics.  None of my notes resulted in these action declarations failing.  The point of the above is that my play example does revolve around human issues -- did the players wish to exterminate the orcs or make friends with them and what does that mean for the characters and the fiction?  Given the premise -- the players are stranded in a foreign plane of existence with no means of escape and limited resources, the decision to try to befriend the orcs and gain some allies is pretty weighty.  Further, I don't have a 'next scene' planned after this -- however this plays out, the players will make a decision on what to do next to advance their immediate goals. Eero makes a pretty clear distinction between DM authority over backstory and that small authority that a player may have (based on system, as noted by Eero) to define aspects of their character's backstory.  In other words, character backstory isn't the backstory Eero is referencing the DM having authority over in his blog post.Eero also doesn't say that the DM always has authority over backstory, and he refers to the cases where the DM doesn't as narrative sharing.  You've explicitly disavowed that you use narrative sharing in your play, while acknowledging others in this thread do.  Eero's entire point in that blog post is that narrative sharing is incoherent with DM authority over backstory and also is very likely incoherent with character advocacy.  The latter because shared narration in support of character advocacy leads to Czege Principle violations.  Also, most shared narration has a goal that isn't character advocacy.  If you are expected to narrate in a manner that is best for the game instead of best for your character, this is incoherent with character advocacy.Finally, as a point, Eero doesn't talk about agency at all in his blog posts.  I think that's telling that he doesn't consider the concept of agency to be important to game design discussion and prefers terms like narration and advocacy.The only confusion I had was the usual adjustment and slow process of deducing what you mean with your unique definition of terms.  Once I understood what you were going for by unravelling the chaff around your usages, I understood you fine.  I disagree with you, and I think you're too narrowly focused on a topic that's not revealing of actual play differences at all, or, rather, that there's a better architecture to discuss the difference you're trying to highlight than using loaded terms like 'agency'.  Again, note that Eero avoids that term, largely because it doesn't have a majority accepted definition and is already a charged term (you don't have as much power as I do is, after all, not something people will generally like to hear).That's the clearest statement of your position, which, again, I've understood for at least the last half of this thread, yet.  The issue with understanding this is largely that you've chosen to frame it in terms that indicated that this isn't good play.  This is understandable because you do not value this kind of play -- I'd hazard that you're strongly opposed to this kind of play based on your statements -- but for people who do enjoy this kind of play (which may arguably be the majority of players) note that in your phrasing and think that you're making a qualitative statement about the value of this kind of play whereas you think you're just making an obvious statement about how this kind of play functions.  And, this is a two way street for a lot of this.  I'm fairly certain that you think that my statements above that you responded to are criticisms rather than attempts to clarify by being blunt on what the issues in the discussion are.  And, that's entirely fair.  But, it's very easy to become defensive when someone else describes your playing or posting in a manner that is blunt and critical and shows some coloring of personal opinion.  I disagree with elements of your position*, and I'm sure that I haven't avoided that disagreement from coloring my posts.*Namely that the distinction you're drawing about agency is worthwhile as the total agency of a game isn't necessarily correlated to the amount of that kind of agency.  Pointing out a game has less of this kind of agency doesn't really show anything worthwhile about the playstyle that isn't already apparent in the general description of the playstyle.  Also, this kind of analysis is rooted in GNS theory, which I find deeply flawed even as it does illuminate some very interesting areas of discussion.  Any theory that heavily relies on GNS to make it's claims is dubious, at best, to me, even if it might still have some utility in discussion.I find discussing Story Now games would be better served by just talking about how they play without reference to GNS theory.  I find referring to GNS theory outside of an audience that already is deeply invested in it to cause confusion through the unique definitions the GNS uses and the obfuscation of concepts behind overly complicated theory-speak.  Story Now games are games played in the moment, with no 'next part of the story' planned, and that focus on the desires of the characters rather than having a world the characters react to.  That's an interesting hook, and a good start to discussion, but the moment you say 'narrativist' you've drug the discussion into a quagmire.In my home game, I have 2 strongly gamist players, a gamist/simulationist, and 2 narrativist focused players.  We play 5e, which is gamist/simulationist with narrativist overtones in design, and we play it with about a 50/20/30 mix of those styles.  The gamist is from the combat nature of the 5e ruleset that encourage builds, acquiring correct equipment, and winning in combat as a major solution to obstacles in play, and the fact that most of my players enjoy the combat game (the 2 more narrativist focused players enjoy it, but don't require it; the gamists would leave without it).  Simulationist in the exploration of the hexgrid and the process steps that enable that -- traveling duties, random encounter roles, managing survival resources, etc.  Narrativist in that there's no plot, the players have their own motivations (built into the premise and character development as questions they had to answer) and the way they approach those goals are unscripted, very much like the desire to acquire an anvil that led to them investigating ruins with orc and then choosing to try to establish peaceful relations with those orcs rather than exterminate them.  What happens next is dependent on how they resolve this issue and what decisions they make about their next moves to accomplish character goals.  The style is largely DM centered, because 70% of the game is best served by strong DM side authority, but that  leaves some room for narrativist play.</blockquote>

Verification