Is "GM Agency" A Thing?

[Maxperson]

The GM making stuff up about what happens, independently of the players' choices about what sort of game they want to play and what matters to them in the play of their PCs, is not "realism" or "depth". It's a type of solitaire play, which may or may not be used to railroad the players in a subsequent session.

Poppycock. It's no more solitaire play than creating a dungeon or inn is. It's world design, not solitaire play and it has everything to do with realism and depth. It's also no more likely to be used as a railroad as any narrative RPG session is. Sure a DM can force it, but it would be extremely rare and has nothing to do with creating a living, breathing world.

 

[Maxperson]

Inferred? What non negative consequences have even been hinted at? Negative consequences is the entire point of the conversation.

The entire point of the conversation is that the world moves along outside of the PCs little island. Nothing more and nothing less.

 

[Maxperson]

That just seems like a variant on @Reynard's example of the thieves' guild. The GM decides to impose some consequence that flows form their solitaire play, without it being in any way connected to the players' play of the game.

But anyway, does this count as a "living, breathing world"?


Is it more or less living and breathing because it was generated via a roll on a table in accordance with the procedures of play? Or because no one (neither the players nor the GM) knows the in-fiction explanation for the food all turning to dust?

That doesn't describe a living, breathing world at all. It's a style of play for sure, but not the style of play that involves having a living, breathing world.

 

[Maxperson]

Only when every line has bought into the illusion that the dm dictating events somehow equates with a living breathing world.

“Hey guys, let’s play in a game where I will dictate everything in the world except your five characters and nothing you do actually matters unless I let it matter” would be a hard sell too.

 

[AnotherGuy]

The GM making stuff up about what happens, independently of the players' choices about what sort of game they want to play and what matters to them in the play of their PCs, is not "realism" or "depth". It's a type of solitaire play, which may or may not be used to railroad the players in a subsequent session.

I think to move this conversation in a more fruitful manner IMO, what would you consider "realism" or "depth", if you even believe that is possible within an RPG?

 

[AnotherGuy]

It is clear from the above discussions that the perspective from one set of the posters is that

• sandbox play is but a myriad number of railroads, and thus a subset of railroad play in general; and
• player agency does not exist in games where the DM establishes stakes and choice contexts as well as deciding on the consequences, which would mean all play in such games would be considered illusionism and thus any talk of living world, realism or depth falls flat.

My position is a little mixed

• I believe Trad games have little-to-no player agency. Their agency is mostly exercised in allowing the DM to tell story D as opposed to story A, story B, or story C.
• I believe the above all falls under the umbrella of illusionism.
• I enjoy Trad games as does my table, but I have a strong issue with this illusionism or as @pemerton calls it solitaire, which is not a bad descriptor. The best way I have found to combat this illusionism, for MY OWN enjoyment of the game, and I have discovered this through discussions with people on Enworld, is to allow some player agency via creative input AND to lean towards a more openly Gamist approach. With regards to the word some - it is whatever you and your table are comfortable with. Start small, let your table become more experienced in offering creative input. It is not the end of the world, and you can still run heavy exploration, linear, railroad play, mystery-investigative style, sandbox play etc games.
• Lastly, I believe in the concept of a living world, it is well defined. Is it perfect/complete and without ANY bias, no, but it doesn't have to be. You do your best to remain impartial. So, I strongly disagree with some posters on that issue. I do not know if such a concept has an equivalent in games which have more player agency.

 

[pemerton]

I think to move this conversation in a more fruitful manner IMO, what would you consider "realism" or "depth", if you even believe that is possible within an RPG?

In the context of fiction, I would associate realism with drama or literary fiction (eg The Quiet American; The Kids Are Alright) but not really with genre fiction. The only "realistic" sci-fi films I can think of are 2001 and Gravity. Perhaps, at a certain limit, Interstellar?

Once we get to fantasy, full-blooded sci-fi, CoC and the like, I think that we can talk about genre fidelity, but don't think "realism" is very helpful. Eg is it realistic, or just amusing, that when Bilbo returns home his goods are being auctioned and his wicked aunt is stealing his silver spoons? And is it more or less realistic that that same aunt stood up against "Sharkey" and was locked away? (But not killed, for whatever reason.)

When it comes to depth, I think about thematic weight. Details are secondary. JRRT provides no detail of the economies of The Shire or Gondor, and the former at least is literally impossible. (The latter is only dubious.) But that doesn't prevent the setting having depth, as a vehicle for the retelling of the Fall in various ways, and related tropes like the restoration of the rightful king; exile, exodus and return; greed, betrayal and redemption.

The World of Greyhawk has quite a bit of detail published about it: I own the Folio, the original boxed set, From the Ashes, both small and big books/maps for The Adventure Begins, and Living Greyhawk Gazetteer. Plus the City boxed set, Iuz the Evil, the corresponding book about Furyondy and Nyrond, the City of Skulls module, all the classic Greyhawk modules, and sundry other bits and pieces.

WoG has, in my view, very little depth. Its virtue is exactly the same as REH's Hyborian Age: you can write basically whatever mainstream fantasy adventure you want on its pages, as it has Elven Kingdoms, Dwarven Halls, deserts, Vikings, ancient empires and their ruins, paladins and other knights, giants in the mountains, etc, etc. But theme and meaning are going to have to be provided by the RPGers who are using the setting. I think some of my actual play posts illustrate how I think this can be done.

A setting which much less detail, but more thematic weight, than WoG, is the 4e default cosmology. Not the minutiae of the Nentir Vale (the virtues of which are no different from those of WoG) but the Dawn War, Gods vs Primordials, the questions of the Dusk Ware and the Lattice of Heaven. This is what makes 4e D&D well-suited for setting-focused (rather than strictly character-focused) "story now" RPGing. Again, I have actual play posts that show this idea in action.

 

[pemerton]

It is clear from the above discussions that the perspective from one set of the posters is that

• sandbox play is but a myriad number of railroads, and thus a subset of railroad play in general; and
• player agency does not exist in games where the DM establishes stakes and choice contexts as well as deciding on the consequences, which would mean all play in such games would be considered illusionism and thus any talk of living world, realism or depth falls flat.

Just two initial clarifications:

(1) I posited an alternative, that the "living breathing" stuff is mere colour;

(2) It won't be illusionism if it's all done transparently. Eg this is how I've played in CoC one-shots.

 

[Reynard]

I feel like this totally ignores the differences between methods.
- “Why are there different methods?”

- “Because people may use different methods.”

It doesn't really say anything.

The thing is that it’s not the world responding to the PCs… it’s either the GM or the system or some combination of those two things.

Treating them as if they’re all the same just seems misguided.

The world of the game isn't real. It's a collective fiction invented by the group playing the game. Of course it is the GM or the system or the players being responsive.

I'm honestly not sure what you are trying to get at. Are you trying to articulate a discussion about why use random tables versus GM fiat versus something else? If so, maybe just say that instead of circling it in such a way that you are constantly intimating that people are being either foolish or disingenuous.

 

[Reynard]

“Hey guys, let’s play in a game where I will dictate everything in the world except your five characters and nothing you do actually matters unless I let it matter” would be a hard sell too.

Show me on the character sheet where the bad GM hurt you.