Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7407762" data-attributes="member: 82106">What I said was that players have, in my games, the same agency they have in YOUR games, AND THEN SOME, which is clearly true since they have additional options. Pemerton stated that your players lacked agency, and qualified that with the understanding that it was with respect to what the content of the fiction was (IE what options where available to players in given fictional situations). Frankly I think that he and I are saying nearly the same thing (in a sort of &quot;a bonus is just a mirror image of a penalty&quot; sort of way). In response you then construed some dialog we provided as a game example (finding some giants) as some sort of 'Story Now is railroading' and made some, frankly wild and ludicrous, claims that our entire technique of play is a 'railroad' (talk about abuse of terminology!). All in an attempt to 'win' some sort of point that giving people less options is actually 'more agency'. I found it tediously obtuse and of no help in advancing the underlying discussion, although we managed to have a couple tangents where some clarity seemed to have emerged. Sadly you went right back to where you were at the start a couple pages later. I find it nothing short of vastly amusing an ironic when you then come back and complain about terminology and try to make it sound like it was other people who abused words.It is true that any and all of us could be, and sometimes are, guilty of being unclear or fail to appreciate some point at some stage in a discussion. For my part I generally adapt my terms, or qualify them, when I see that happening. I expect other posters to at least TRY to do the same.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 7407762, member: 82106"] What I said was that players have, in my games, the same agency they have in YOUR games, AND THEN SOME, which is clearly true since they have additional options. Pemerton stated that your players lacked agency, and qualified that with the understanding that it was with respect to what the content of the fiction was (IE what options where available to players in given fictional situations). Frankly I think that he and I are saying nearly the same thing (in a sort of "a bonus is just a mirror image of a penalty" sort of way). In response you then construed some dialog we provided as a game example (finding some giants) as some sort of 'Story Now is railroading' and made some, frankly wild and ludicrous, claims that our entire technique of play is a 'railroad' (talk about abuse of terminology!). All in an attempt to 'win' some sort of point that giving people less options is actually 'more agency'. I found it tediously obtuse and of no help in advancing the underlying discussion, although we managed to have a couple tangents where some clarity seemed to have emerged. Sadly you went right back to where you were at the start a couple pages later. I find it nothing short of vastly amusing an ironic when you then come back and complain about terminology and try to make it sound like it was other people who abused words. It is true that any and all of us could be, and sometimes are, guilty of being unclear or fail to appreciate some point at some stage in a discussion. For my part I generally adapt my terms, or qualify them, when I see that happening. I expect other posters to at least TRY to do the same. [/QUOTE]

Verification