Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Ovinomancer" data-source="post: 7410752" data-attributes="member: 16814">This is... well, a hot mess.Specific criticisms:1) Percentage is a relative measurement.&nbsp; It measures what you have against the maximum you could have.&nbsp; So saying you have 100% agency isn't saying that agency isn't limited, it's just saying &quot;I maximize the amount agency possible&quot; and doesn't make statements on what's possible.&nbsp; A better criticism would be to point out that saying you have 100% agency isn't really saying anything at all because it's a relative measurement without a clear definition of what it's in relation to.&nbsp; Now, Max does state that his version of agency means 'player get to declare PC actions without restrictions' which is fine, but without that 100% agency is just meaningless.&nbsp; 2) &quot;more&quot; and &quot;less&quot; are quantitative assessments.&nbsp; They talk about how much there is, not the quality of what there is.&nbsp; This is definitional.3)&nbsp; No, you can't label 'more' and 'less' as qualitative arguments, because 'more' is not a quality something can possess.&nbsp; These are, again, quantitative statements.&nbsp; I sorely wish we'd actually talk about qualitative measures of agency, as that would mean we could talk about both where traditional play affects agency and where narrativist play affects agency and contrast, maybe, against mythical simulationist effects on agency.&nbsp; Further, if you actually say you have more agency, and define agency as a desirable thing, you're making a claim that your play is better than the other play.&nbsp; Which is exactly why you get the responses you do when you say this.&nbsp; You being general here, and applying to anyone that thinks they have a line one using that kind of argument.Now, once you get through this hot mess of numbers, you make a lot of sense.&nbsp; I really like your summation, which doesn't depend at all on your 1-3 above (and, in fact, kinda fights against some of the points you made).&nbsp; But then that last line, full of vinegar and holier-than-thou righteousness.&nbsp; No, man, don't do that.&nbsp; If you stop telling people that your style has 'more' agency (where agency is a positive thing), you'll get less pushback. If, instead, you actually talk about the real qualitative differences, you'll get less (it's the internet, so 'none' is not an option).&nbsp; However, you then have to accept points where your style inhibits some agency (and it does) and take it with equanimity.&nbsp; Haven't seen that, yet, either -- had a nice exchange earlier trying to point out where Story Now limits agency and was repeatedly told it doesn't because that kind of play isn't part of Story Now.&nbsp; :\&nbsp; It's like, maybe, people don't like to be told their styles aren't perfect?</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Ovinomancer, post: 7410752, member: 16814"] This is... well, a hot mess. Specific criticisms: 1) Percentage is a relative measurement. It measures what you have against the maximum you could have. So saying you have 100% agency isn't saying that agency isn't limited, it's just saying "I maximize the amount agency possible" and doesn't make statements on what's possible. A better criticism would be to point out that saying you have 100% agency isn't really saying anything at all because it's a relative measurement without a clear definition of what it's in relation to. Now, Max does state that his version of agency means 'player get to declare PC actions without restrictions' which is fine, but without that 100% agency is just meaningless. 2) "more" and "less" are quantitative assessments. They talk about how much there is, not the quality of what there is. This is definitional. 3) No, you can't label 'more' and 'less' as qualitative arguments, because 'more' is not a quality something can possess. These are, again, quantitative statements. I sorely wish we'd actually talk about qualitative measures of agency, as that would mean we could talk about both where traditional play affects agency and where narrativist play affects agency and contrast, maybe, against mythical simulationist effects on agency. Further, if you actually say you have more agency, and define agency as a desirable thing, you're making a claim that your play is better than the other play. Which is exactly why you get the responses you do when you say this. You being general here, and applying to anyone that thinks they have a line one using that kind of argument. Now, once you get through this hot mess of numbers, you make a lot of sense. I really like your summation, which doesn't depend at all on your 1-3 above (and, in fact, kinda fights against some of the points you made). But then that last line, full of vinegar and holier-than-thou righteousness. No, man, don't do that. If you stop telling people that your style has 'more' agency (where agency is a positive thing), you'll get less pushback. If, instead, you actually talk about the real qualitative differences, you'll get less (it's the internet, so 'none' is not an option). However, you then have to accept points where your style inhibits some agency (and it does) and take it with equanimity. Haven't seen that, yet, either -- had a nice exchange earlier trying to point out where Story Now limits agency and was repeatedly told it doesn't because that kind of play isn't part of Story Now. :\ It's like, maybe, people don't like to be told their styles aren't perfect? [/QUOTE]

Verification