Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7407180" data-attributes="member: 82106">I think the sticking point here is simply that the two of you (you and [MENTION=23751]Maxperson[/MENTION], I mourn the lack of nested quotes sometimes) are just drawing a line at slightly different points. The ultimate results of that line drawing difference are pretty significant, but in terminological terms (yay English) there's no need to fight about which one 'owns' the term 'agency'. Earlier you particularized it as 'agency with respect to the fiction' or some such words. I think that's perfectly adequate and Max needs to be reasonable and accept it. Using 'agency' is a perfectly reasonable expediency. We could as easily quibble with Max's use of the term and refusal to particularize HIS use (but I won't bother).To be precise; Max considers the GM's 'framing power' to extend to all aspects of fictional positioning such that any restriction on the character (and thus player decision agency) falls under that framing power (GM Agency). You draw a slightly different line under which player decision making agency extends to any matter which decides how the character will engage with the thematic elements of the scene (resolve the conflict inherent in that scene). Thus your player agency definition extends to the effects of fictional positioning which are restrictive of engaging with those thematic elements.In Max's technique of play players can only have agency to act within the GM's stated fictional positioning constraints. If a wall is without secret doors then the player has no recourse to one. In your technique a player has recourse to search said wall for a secret passage in order to move the narrative onto a path which engages with character traits, genre logic, thematic elements, etc. (the exact list, the procedures used, and the exact details depend on game system and other factors). One problem I note with the critical analysis of [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s stated technique preferences is a lack of acknowledgment of the limits of player agency. Players DO NOT HAVE (in most systems, and certainly in the ones under discussion) limitless agency to obviate fictional positioning. They have a limited agency to change the effects of fictional positioning when it leads to certain types of results. Indeed, Eero Tuovinen seems to be advocating for a type of game where the GM retains sufficient agency to obviate any excesses attempted by players beyond what is prescribed. That is how I read it anyway.</blockquote>

Verification