Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Manbearcat" data-source="post: 6592249" data-attributes="member: 6696971">I'm not really sure how we go from my post (which is specifically about GM subordinating player agency through the application of force) to your post (which asserts the trivially obvious; that GMs are inevitably going to have an impact on the trajectory of play due to all that goes into being a Games Master - reading players', hopefully, telegraphed cues of their thematic interests, framing of conflicts, playing the PCs' adversity, sorting out the fallout, making rulings in corner cases, etc) as a rebuttal.  I mean no one would disagree with that general position.  But just because GMs will inevitably have an impact on the trajectory of what emerges at the table, it doesn't mean that one can't qualitatively assess the immediate, and potential, impact of force upon player agency.There are two main types of player agency as I see it.  The type that  @<a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/member.php?u=66434" target="_blank">ExploderWizard</a> is advocating for and is present in all games of D&D.  This is strategic/tactical player agency.  The right to make informed strategic and tactical decisions and have play outcomes authentically be driven by them.Then there is thematic player agency.  The right of a player to advocate for their PC's thematic interests/protagonism, whatever flavor that might take, and to make decisions/answer the bell when those thematic interests/that protganism is challenged during play...and have relevant play outcomes emerge authentically as a result of the player advocating for their PC.In either case, if the system's play procedures mandate that some form of fortune resolution is required to derive the outcome, then it is handled without force/manipulation.  This ensures that the player's strategic/tactical/thematic agency in that particular situation is intact.  That whatever immediate fallout, and latent knock-on fallout down the line, accrues (good or bad) is driven/earned by the player's capacity/will to act (rather than the GM's suspension of that capacity/will and imposition of their own in its place).Again, back to my example of my Dungeon World game.  If the system was less transparent from a play procedure persoective and/or had the GM rolling some of the dice, I could have covertly subordinated the player's agency to my own desires (for whatever reason).  I could have turned their earned "dragon as ally" into "dragon as enemy".  That application of force would have triggered immediate fallout (now you're fighting an ancient dragon and maybe dieing or securing its hoard!) and that immediate fallout (driven by my overwriting of player agency with "my script") would have rippled, dynamically and potently, throughout the rest of foreseeable play.  A certain part of the signal of their future agency (if it wasn't removed because they're now dead!) would be irrevocably impacted by the noise of my application of force in that one situation.Any other "player agency-neutral" role that I might play as GM isn't of my concern in this specific situation.[HR][/HR]Quick relevant aside (because it was brought up).  In sports, the issue of team/player agency is an enormous one.  For instance, 3rd and 15 and the defense gets off the field forcing a punt.  But wait!  Flag on the field!  The refs have just called a brutally tickey tack/questionable illegal contact, maybe even away from the play (yay!) on a receiver right at 5 yards (or perhaps the receiver may have initiated the contact).  Boom.  1st down + field position + defense still on the field and demoralized + other team maintains momentum.  There is no getting around it.  That is a huge, huge, huge call in that game after the defense (and their fans surely!) feels that they rightly earned the ball back for their offense.  Same thing goes for "hit on a defenseless receiver", "roughing the QB", or the ridiculously nebuluos "make a football move" garbage that was written in the rules after they screwed up the Calvin Johnson catch a few years back (and then went on to screw others such as the Dez Bryant catch these last playoffs).  Of course this is where the "let them play (!)" meme comes from.  It is all about players/teams/fans decrying the subordination of the teams' on-the-field efforts to a referees (mis) judgement (specifically where nebulous rules are involved)...and having outcomes infected by it or outright derived from it.</blockquote>

Verification