Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Celebrim" data-source="post: 7622799" data-attributes="member: 4937">And both in practice could fail to provide player agency depending on the techniques that the game's moderator/referee/secret keeper/story teller employed to shift agency back to themselves.&nbsp; And that means that we have to look beyond just the systems that the game's rules put in place, but at the games actual processes of play.&nbsp;&nbsp; In practice, I think 'System 1' will be harder to railroad, but only because 'System 1' type games tend to be more recent, and as such tend to define the processes of play more tightly as part of the rules that they present.&nbsp;&nbsp; But I've watched videos of 'System 1' games actually being played, and there is still enough room for a Gamemaster to skillfully manipulate the process of play, that it was very difficult for me to tell by watching the video whether the players had any agency at all.And certainly, I know 'System 2' type games well enough, and how to run them, and the subtle techniques you can employ, that I know I can successfully manipulate and steer players without them realizing how little agency they really have at that moment.&nbsp;&nbsp; And that's not even to get into situations where, I'm the player, and I know the GM is running a module, and so I willingly get on the rails and give up the agency I in theory have, because I don't want to make life difficult for the GM.&nbsp;&nbsp; So here, in theory I have a lot of agency, but because published modules run as is are typically 'small worlds', despite the agency I may have, in practice because of how the game was prepared (or not prepared), my agency is limited to comparatively small 'tactical' choices and not larger narrative choices.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Celebrim, post: 7622799, member: 4937"] And both in practice could fail to provide player agency depending on the techniques that the game's moderator/referee/secret keeper/story teller employed to shift agency back to themselves. And that means that we have to look beyond just the systems that the game's rules put in place, but at the games actual processes of play. In practice, I think 'System 1' will be harder to railroad, but only because 'System 1' type games tend to be more recent, and as such tend to define the processes of play more tightly as part of the rules that they present. But I've watched videos of 'System 1' games actually being played, and there is still enough room for a Gamemaster to skillfully manipulate the process of play, that it was very difficult for me to tell by watching the video whether the players had any agency at all. And certainly, I know 'System 2' type games well enough, and how to run them, and the subtle techniques you can employ, that I know I can successfully manipulate and steer players without them realizing how little agency they really have at that moment. And that's not even to get into situations where, I'm the player, and I know the GM is running a module, and so I willingly get on the rails and give up the agency I in theory have, because I don't want to make life difficult for the GM. So here, in theory I have a lot of agency, but because published modules run as is are typically 'small worlds', despite the agency I may have, in practice because of how the game was prepared (or not prepared), my agency is limited to comparatively small 'tactical' choices and not larger narrative choices. [/QUOTE]

Verification