Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Ilbranteloth" data-source="post: 7377939" data-attributes="member: 6778044">But this is still all missing my point. I never once indicated that my game is, or that I ever wanted it to be, a “standard narrativist game.” Which means that this specific definition of player agency is irrelevant to me. The narrativist model is one way to design or play an RPG. Not using that model doesn’t mean the players lack agency.Character advocacy is to have control of your character. As long as you can make decisions for your character and your character can act appropriately in a given circumstance, you have agency.Restrictions do not equal lack of agency.Dramatic need is a subjective thing. What you view as dramatic need is different than what I think. Each player at the table has a different view of what dramatic need is, as does the GM. Control and advocacy of the character is not subjective. Either I get to make decisions and choose actions for my character or not.Restrictions in the fiction do not constitute a lack of player agency. If you were to set a scenario where the characters are interred in a concentration camp on WWII, the player’s agency has not been altered. The character has many restrictions set upon them, but they can still make decisions and take actions as the character. A game where the character is imprisoned in an oubliette and chained to the wall does not remove player agency. It makes for a very challenging game where much of the action might occur in the character’s head, but as long as there are no restrictions on the part of the player in playing that character, they have agency.Who writes the fiction of whether something is there or not does not alter player agency. It alters the fiction.When parts of the fiction are written is also irrelevant. A player can pre-author something too. However, some things might be more fixed than others.The GM deciding that there is no secret door in this particular passage 10 years before play does not affect player agency, any more than the DM declaring that in this pseudo-medieval fantasy world there are no space ships, and no, you can’t have one.If you are playing a standard narrativist model game, however, then some of these things remove player agency. Because by design, some of these things are within the agency of the players, and some of these scenarios or mechanics take that agency away.That does not apply in other games where the agency that the player has, by design, is different.If you want to design a football game where the players can alter the circumstance of scoring, or where they can make decisions they are currently within the realm of the referee, you have not altered the agency of the players in the original game. They still have 100% player agency, even though there is now a game that gives them more options.You, and others, continue to attempt to assess the agency of the players by the lens of your specific game or game model. I have a problem with that because the implication is that others are “doing it wrong” or it raises the possibility that players who don’t make the distinction between games expect something different from other gameplay models.But I think you are entirely wrong about what constitutes player agency in other games. The goals of the design of the game, the goals of the GM, and the players all help define what agency the players want/get, along with what agency the GM wants/gets. The type of agency may be different. And that remains my point - the definition of player agency is dependent upon the game being played.How does B2 restrict agency at all? The provisions you say are lacking are part of the game system itself. It doesn’t need to be repeated in the adventure. In the same “standard” OD&D, AD&D, BECMI, 2e, 2.5e, etc models it doesn’t. The characters are free to wander the keep and do whatever they’d like. They can wander the wilderness. They can explore the caves of chaos in whatever manner they choose. They can interact with anything they feel like. There are no restrictions that I can discern in the reading of the text that restricts a player’s agency at all. And while there is a lot of material that is already authored, the GM is free to add or alter it accordingly. There is no doubt that the world, and creatures in it, are going to have to react to the actions of the PCs. I’ve never seen two runs through the module the same, because each group’s goals, approaches, and decisions are different. It could just as easily be played as a Story Now or Standard Narrativist game where the GM altered whatever is needed as the game progresses. Of course, depending on how much control the players have over the fiction might eliminate much of it from play anyway, but there isn’t anything wrong with that. Within those styles, as long as restrictions aren’t placed on the GM (you must use this text without alteration) or player’s that alter their agency within their game, then the module still doesn’t alter agency.A different perspective is the player who prefers a simulationist game, where he is a character within a world, and has no control other than “to be me,” then forcing them to take narrative control of the world around them is impacting their agency.It’s all well and good what those games are reactions against. But this also addresses my point. I’m not interested in those games nor the type of agency they are designed to provide. Their existence does not alter the agency present in my games. They are designed for the people who want to play those types of games. Yay for them!People who are looking for a different kind of agency don’t have to play them. Yay for us!</blockquote>

Verification