Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 7409974" data-attributes="member: 82106">OK, I think its 'freedom', yes, but so is being supplied with oxygen, yet we wouldn't say that being so supplied is the same as being totally free. More to the point, EVERYONE has your form of agency in all but the most utterly degenerate of RPGing experiences, and I think we all agree it is pointless to talk about games where 'rocks fall and you die'. So, I agree that there is a freedom to play your character, but I think its also clear that if the GM puts the character in a cage and no actions are feasible, that this freedom is then meaningless, right? So there ARE degrees of agency, its not just 'all the same', right?Beyond that, if Pemerton says that another form of agency exists, which is expressed in terms of the players being able to choose what the 'direction of play' is (or at least have a lot of input on that in a direct sense, like introducing new elements to scenes such as secret doors) then that is something that isn't covered by the definition of agency you are using.Is it really all that hard to see what Pemerton then means when he says there's a 'greater agency'? Beyond that he just pointed out what I said here, that your definition of agency really just describes RPGs IN GENERAL, that all of them must have this characteristic to be even worth discussing, so why do we need to spend time on that really? Max's notion that one 'balances the other' somehow just never made sense. Not to me. It wasn't really even germane.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="AbdulAlhazred, post: 7409974, member: 82106"] OK, I think its 'freedom', yes, but so is being supplied with oxygen, yet we wouldn't say that being so supplied is the same as being totally free. More to the point, EVERYONE has your form of agency in all but the most utterly degenerate of RPGing experiences, and I think we all agree it is pointless to talk about games where 'rocks fall and you die'. So, I agree that there is a freedom to play your character, but I think its also clear that if the GM puts the character in a cage and no actions are feasible, that this freedom is then meaningless, right? So there ARE degrees of agency, its not just 'all the same', right? Beyond that, if Pemerton says that another form of agency exists, which is expressed in terms of the players being able to choose what the 'direction of play' is (or at least have a lot of input on that in a direct sense, like introducing new elements to scenes such as secret doors) then that is something that isn't covered by the definition of agency you are using. Is it really all that hard to see what Pemerton then means when he says there's a 'greater agency'? Beyond that he just pointed out what I said here, that your definition of agency really just describes RPGs IN GENERAL, that all of them must have this characteristic to be even worth discussing, so why do we need to spend time on that really? Max's notion that one 'balances the other' somehow just never made sense. Not to me. It wasn't really even germane. [/QUOTE]

Verification