Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7356667" data-attributes="member: 16814">Sigh.  Yes, you have, for the purposes of the discussion in this thread you've defined agency as that agency that relates to input into the shared fiction.  That's a definition.  This isn't a trap, or an accusation, or a bad thing, it's pointing out that you have a very precise meaning when you say "agency" in this discussion, and that "agency" is defined, by you, in this manner for this discussion.I'm honestly baffled that you are 1) opposing this and 2) actually think that you haven't established a specific definition of agency for the purposes of your analysis.Although, I'll note that you oppose any argument from some posters, regardless of what they say.  This entire post is you finding reasons to disagree with me despite me saying pretty much exactly what you've been saying.Search for the word 'agency' on Eero's blog.  The only returns are when agency is part of the name of a game he's discussing.  Search on google for the word agency+Eero (use his full name, of course).  The returns are when he's commenting on a discussion where some other poster uses agency.  Eero does not establish agency as something he uses to discuss game design.  Instead he uses much more tailored and specific points to discuss options open to players.  I believe this is because Eero is keen on being as precise as possible and agency is often very imprecise in these discussion.  This is why you've chosen to tightly define agency for the purposes of your analysis -- the general term agency is to vague and undefinable to be used for good analysis.  As for Eero borrowing from the Forge and thus importing agency indirectly, I'm having trouble finding defintions of the standard narrativistic model, much less one that defines the model using 'agency'.Ron Edward's Narrativism: Story Now post doesn't use agency anywhere in the seminal definition of Story Now style.  Check for yourself.Sure, I don't have access to the text of DitV, so I can't follow along with what Baker is saying there.  I've had trouble locating strong discussions of agency on Baker's blog, though, so I can't source this through other means.Again, you've brought Ron up long before the recent posts.I didn't -- you're the one citing things based on GNS perspective.  It's hard to discuss those cites accurately without an understanding of why they think that way.  And, many people who are not familiar with GNS theories are reading and commenting on posts we make quoting each other, so my explanations are for two reasons: 1) to verify we're talking about the same things and 2) make that discussion understandable to others.Again, you're the one that keeps quoting outside cites that use GNS terminology or the Standard Narrativist Model, which is written by Ron Edwards based on his GNS theories.  Discussing that things you cite requires a grasp of the theory it's based on.  You could have chosen to make those arguments in clear terms, but instead chose to offload that explanation onto your cites which are steeped in GNS theory and term usages.  Eero adds another layer as he has a few terms he's defined and uses that aren't GNS but are very specific.So, I'm explaining it to other people reading what I'm saying to you.Yes, really.  Nothing I said there implies that previous story isn't incorporated, and I've said in other posts exactly this.  However, since that was the only thing that you cut out of five paragraphs talking about the central issue in discussion, I must assume that you agree with what you snipped and only had this one point of contention in what I said.</blockquote>

Verification