I don't think it is clearly zero-sum (ie constant) nor the opposite. I think it can be zero-sum game for some styles and tables - but it can also be either more complex or just more harmonious (everyone has tons of agency!).Is players' + GM's agency a constant? Or is it clearly not?
Maybe I'm privileged (or you're unfortunate, or somewhere in-between), but I honestly find this line of thought somewhat sad and disconcerting. Players and GM having such an adversarial relationship sounds like the recipe for a bad time and lots of conflicts. It's not that everyone can always get exactly what they want, but I've always found that reaching a consensus isn't that hard, and it's relatively minor differences that have to be compromised on.Though even with a rule, you still have the same page problem. Sure if the GM and players are all in step with each other, then the player will only say and suggest things the GM already agrees with. If not, you go back to the same old problem of the player vs GM type things.
This is way too far for me. This is forcing a GM to do something: and I'm never going to support that. I get that there are some GMs that just LOVE to be told what to do by the players......but it's not for me.
And i think it's bad for the game play. Forcing a GM to do something they don't want to do will often, nearly always, give a bad result. The GM is just not going to put any effort into something they are forced to do: so it will be a luke warm dull scene...at best. And that is on top of the GM simply not making the scene 'count'.
I just think of the horror that SO MANY players want to sit down and play an RPG...but the "scene" they desire to play is "getting drunk at the bar" or "shopping". As an iron fisted GM, I smack down hard on things like that. I'll do the "oh rocks fall on your character and trap them till morning so you can go shopping". But the idea the game would have a rule where the player could go "haha, I force you to let my character go shopping". And then we WASTE 1-3 hours of game time while the character goes shopping. And because I don't want to do it, it will be endless "oh...the boot shop has boots for sale" with no engagement or descriptions from me, Just and endless "the store has boots...sigh, are you done shopping yet?"
Something like what you describe where the players want something that the GM doesn't, does that really happen to you? I'm not being sarcastic and please tell me to back off if I'm stepping where I shouldn't, but it sounds like you need to find different players or have serious talks about finding common ground for this leisure activity.
As a player I would never do something the GM hates (in the sense that I'd know I'm going too far - some GMs don't mind a bit of annoyance). For example, if know a GM hates urban locales and dialogue-heavy sessions, as a player I wouldn't set off to the nearest metropolis and try to start some intrigues. And from the other side of the table, as a GM, if I know players really like barroom brawls and drunken revelry, then I'll keep this in mind when preparing - I would try to accommodate this preference and mix it up with other stuff (usually the players don't all have the same narrative, thematic and interactive preferences). Not because I like being meek and giving players what they want - but because RPGs are a leisure activity. They're supposed to be fun. If I sit down at a table it means I've agreed to compromise and participate in a way that works for everyone - or if there really are big enough differences in taste, we've talked it over beforehand and know the ground rules going in.
If your players are that likely to force you into something you really deeply dislike, then I'm not sure it matters that much if you go with Story Now or some more traditional/classic/simulationist/other style. And going back to the original post and your mention that you really don't feel too good about some of the players and their characters (something like that at least), isn't this really more a problem of table harmony than agency or what system to run?
Again, sorry if I am overstepping some boundaries here, but I think it's hard to discuss these systems, techniques and concepts without acknowledging that deeper conflicts can interfere in quite profound ways. We're not robots playing these games. Trust, compromise, shared conventions and empathy matter.
Last edited: