Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Emberashh" data-source="post: 9318993" data-attributes="member: 7040941">There wasn't much of a difference at all, given I was running the Green Knight and my players somehow managed to not ask the Fox any of the expected questions before giving up and killing it. In Agon we weren't getting much more than what the Signs basically tell you verbatim they're about, which kind of works against the idea of having to interpret them when theres only so many things you can actually do on the islands. And I'd also say that the idea that they sort of just esoterically exist and could be introduced to the players before they've begun, without intervention that is, kind of shorts the idea. But at that point you're off the rails of the book and just making things up, at which point I start to question the point if I have to come up with the clever ways to have the Signs appear to the players, so that at least some interesting scenarios can come out of the small amount of content I'm working with. Particularly when, coming back to the present, the idea was supposedly this was supposed to result in a more equal share, and not a dramatic increase for GM and a small, if thematic, increase for the singular leader.  You should read what I said more carefully. I never equated them in that way, and it wasn't a dismissal but an observation. Note, however, that this isn't how game protagonists work. You're talking about written protagonists. So again it must be stated that protagonism and its de- opposite are completely phoney concepts that don't exist. A protagonist is always a protagonist, and is an immutable concept unless the character itself thats considered the protagonist literally changes to a completely new one, sliding the old character into a new role. None of that is whats happening just because the GM might have made the poor decision to build a railroad. What you're actually talking about is agency, and the fundamental reduction that occurs on a railroad. Which is fine. Its completely valid to have an issue with it and nobody is arguing with you because we think the railroad is good actually. You're being argued with because of phoney jargon describing an already existing concept, on the basis of a problem that we all agree is bad. And because, of the argument that supposes that the railroad is an immutable component of the games in question (which you argue when you position the Games as reducing agency, and not individual GMs), and not something universally recognized as a terrible way to runna game.</blockquote>

Verification