Super interesting! I wonder if 'player creativity' is a kind of agency, distinct from strategic agency. In Charades or You Are a Muffin, you do make choices about how to communicate or express yourself.
In Charades it might be a split second decision, so time is a resource. At the same time, you're probably trying to preform and amuse your friends, not JUST trying to win the point.
I'm not sure about journaling games, but it seems like one is making choices about what kind of story they want to tell themselves. Even though it's very meditative, you are making creative choices.
An interesting (to me) issue is about how limits/cost impact agency. Imagine to versions of CARTA: in one version (no-limits) I can pick as many cards as I want and eventually turn over every card/prompt. In another version (yes-limits), you pick one card and the others become locked/inactive (This being similar to survival mode or having a deep hunter). In one sense the no-limits game has more agency because I have more choices/control. Also, because i can visit more prompts you can say that it has more impact. On the other hand, maybe the yes-limits version seems like a more meaningful choice, because my choice closes off other options? Is this another way of saying that the yes-limits version has more impact because it closes those options off? Or is it that limits/cost is another dimension of increasing agency?
Playing on the the Information in the ICI model, imagine how much more agency you have if you turn the cards over before you make a choice. Without that piece there is no differentiation between the choices, and without differentiation I am not sure it is choice in a meaningful sense. Maybe this plays into Foreseeability in the FADC model.
I think I am mis-understanding the CCI model (I read the link about it) but I am not grok'ing why there are two c's in this model. In my reading, you can't have any choices without control (otherwise its not a choice) and you can't have control if you don't have choices. For example, if cards are laid out in a row and you have two go through them in order, you don't have choices because you have no control over the next card, and you have no control because there are no choices. Do folks have a sense of when you can have one but not the other?
I think it's subtle, but I could imagine a scenario where the player is presented with multiple options (Choice) but the game state or practical application actually limits which ones make sense, or which ones could be chosen. So perhaps you have three options, but in reality only one option makes sense to choose. This would fail to give the player the control necessary to make a true choice. I'm not sure, but that's how I might think about it.
This reminds me of the Voice of Cards series, which I wanted to like but couldn't get into. It didn't use the card concept for anything except aesthetics, no deck building or drawing. It looked great but the mechanics didn't build out into anything. Though at least there the card backs on the map told you what kind of terrain you were in. Carta and its ilk don't even do that, just offering standard card backs with no information to guide your choices. At least the pursuit versions have some force, but it's still largely choosing a random direction and getting a random result.
> Start with a blank table rather than the grid, building as you go
This is one I need to try. Sometimes I'll have an idea for a setting, list out some prompts which will occur for a given suit, and make a grid. Adding dynamism to the actual map could be fun.
Dead Belt is probably my favorite Carta game so far.
Also, what are those miniatures in the Dredge photos? They looks so cool!
Fixed a typo. The line should have read: "It’s equally important to remember that player agency (at least as defined above) isn’t always necessary to have fun."
Super interesting! I wonder if 'player creativity' is a kind of agency, distinct from strategic agency. In Charades or You Are a Muffin, you do make choices about how to communicate or express yourself.
In Charades it might be a split second decision, so time is a resource. At the same time, you're probably trying to preform and amuse your friends, not JUST trying to win the point.
I'm not sure about journaling games, but it seems like one is making choices about what kind of story they want to tell themselves. Even though it's very meditative, you are making creative choices.
I like your distinction between "creative" and "strategic" agency. That's an interesting way to think about the two sides of it. Thank you!
An interesting (to me) issue is about how limits/cost impact agency. Imagine to versions of CARTA: in one version (no-limits) I can pick as many cards as I want and eventually turn over every card/prompt. In another version (yes-limits), you pick one card and the others become locked/inactive (This being similar to survival mode or having a deep hunter). In one sense the no-limits game has more agency because I have more choices/control. Also, because i can visit more prompts you can say that it has more impact. On the other hand, maybe the yes-limits version seems like a more meaningful choice, because my choice closes off other options? Is this another way of saying that the yes-limits version has more impact because it closes those options off? Or is it that limits/cost is another dimension of increasing agency?
Playing on the the Information in the ICI model, imagine how much more agency you have if you turn the cards over before you make a choice. Without that piece there is no differentiation between the choices, and without differentiation I am not sure it is choice in a meaningful sense. Maybe this plays into Foreseeability in the FADC model.
I do think the "information" and "foreseeability" in those models make a lot of sense!
I think I am mis-understanding the CCI model (I read the link about it) but I am not grok'ing why there are two c's in this model. In my reading, you can't have any choices without control (otherwise its not a choice) and you can't have control if you don't have choices. For example, if cards are laid out in a row and you have two go through them in order, you don't have choices because you have no control over the next card, and you have no control because there are no choices. Do folks have a sense of when you can have one but not the other?
I think it's subtle, but I could imagine a scenario where the player is presented with multiple options (Choice) but the game state or practical application actually limits which ones make sense, or which ones could be chosen. So perhaps you have three options, but in reality only one option makes sense to choose. This would fail to give the player the control necessary to make a true choice. I'm not sure, but that's how I might think about it.
Yeah, I can see that. Thanks for the response
This reminds me of the Voice of Cards series, which I wanted to like but couldn't get into. It didn't use the card concept for anything except aesthetics, no deck building or drawing. It looked great but the mechanics didn't build out into anything. Though at least there the card backs on the map told you what kind of terrain you were in. Carta and its ilk don't even do that, just offering standard card backs with no information to guide your choices. At least the pursuit versions have some force, but it's still largely choosing a random direction and getting a random result.
> Start with a blank table rather than the grid, building as you go
This is one I need to try. Sometimes I'll have an idea for a setting, list out some prompts which will occur for a given suit, and make a grid. Adding dynamism to the actual map could be fun.
Dead Belt is probably my favorite Carta game so far.
Also, what are those miniatures in the Dredge photos? They looks so cool!
Dead Belt is very cool! The minis are from The Everrrain board game.
Fixed a typo. The line should have read: "It’s equally important to remember that player agency (at least as defined above) isn’t always necessary to have fun."