Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Arilyn" data-source="post: 7412040" data-attributes="member: 6816042">This just means they are happy with the current level;ithas no bearing on their agency in comparison to Story Now games. There seems to be an underlying theme that more agency equals better. This isn't true for all games or players. Total agency is not necessarily a good thing. If I start a new job, and am told  to do as I think best with no constraints or guidelines, I'm going to feel at a loss. I would prefer some direction. I think the weakness of Story Now can be high player agency. The players might not know what they want to do. Story Now also runs the risk of the group ending up with not much story at all. There are strengths and weaknesses in both styles. In Story Now, the players have agency over what has traditionally been in the GM's hands. This gives them more agency overall--their character's agency in the imaginary world plus the player's agency over the fiction. It may be apples and oranges, in a way, but Story Now gamers are getting more fruit. For some, it might be too much fruit.You say your players have just as much agency because they are playing in the campaign they want and are free to explore the world as they see fit. Yes, they have lots of agency. Your GMing style sounds great. It can't provide the same amount of agency as Story Now, without adopting Story Now, however. In Story Now, the player input on the fiction is continual. But so what? As mentioned above, too much agency can cause difficulties. Story Now remains a minority style, and I doubt will ever dominate rpgs. I have been recently been playing in a Story Now campaign. It's fun and engaging. I appreciate it, but I enjoy Classical just as much. pemerton, on the other hand, prefers Story Now exclusively, and I'm sure Lanefan will never like Story Now. I think we've been getting caught up in agency as a measurement of quality, which is leading to odd arguments and accusations of railroading on both sides of the debate.</blockquote>

Verification