Is "GM Agency" A Thing?

[Micah Sweet]

I don't like the term GM agency because it is not similar to player agency in concept as folks discuss it here. Typically, one sees more player agency as being better, but in the case of GM agency, it seems limiting it is necessary for certain types of games to work. I'm already ambivalent about player agency and the mental gymnastics folks put themselves through to ensure the right amount. I dont want this to become another divide between trad and story now styles. Probably too late.

I don't think either type of agency is better or worse inherently.

 

[Umbran]

I mean if you want to be all vague sure.

I think most of the game social contracts out there are vauge.

For RPGs though the social contract is way more a set thing....often spelled out in writing.

I don't think they are often written. They are a result of folks discussing how they want to play and relate together, and become unwritten understandings.

But even if your talking about some "new" form a social contract.....the DM can still break or ignore it.

Like you can have a social contract say "the DM shalt not cheat"....but the DM can do it and be impossible to 'catch' doing so.

Loads of GMs say they can break the rules at will, and the players "never know". We aren't as clever or sneaky as we like to think, though. Often they know, they just don't make a stink about it unless they happen to care at the moment.

And, I think you are reading things as rather more literal than folks intend. Of course there is no Contract Force of the Universe that will make it physically impossible to break the social contract. That's not the concept of a "contract".

However, breaking the contract burns some amount of trust/goodwill of the players, and that can add up and have consequences - there are costs to breaking the contract that you may ultimately have to pay.

 

[MrTemplar]

I would totally pay to have Larry David discuss player agency with some of our commenters.

I think letting Ari Gold loose on them might even be more fun to watch.

 

[Divine2021]

Reynard, you ask good questions. In this instance though, I think “agency” is one of those words that, through overuse, has become practically useless. Not your fault, but with no common understanding of where to even begin with the concept, there’s no real place for a conversation to go, imo.

 

[bloodtide]

I think most of the game social contracts out there are vauge.

Some get specific ad even full of legalese

I don't think they are often written. They are a result of folks discussing how they want to play and relate together, and become unwritten understandings.

You can sure find plenty online....

Loads of GMs say they can break the rules at will, and the players "never know". We aren't as clever or sneaky as we like to think, though. Often they know, they just don't make a stink about it unless they happen to care at the moment.

And, I think you are reading things as rather more literal than folks intend. Of course there is no Contract Force of the Universe that will make it physically impossible to break the social contract. That's not the concept of a "contract".

However, breaking the contract burns some amount of trust/goodwill of the players, and that can add up and have consequences - there are costs to breaking the contract that you may ultimately have to pay.

Eh, YMMV.

Some DMs are the "writing checks their ego can't cash" types.....

 

[Maxperson]

Some get specific ad even full of legalese

They call those contracts. Not social contracts.

You can sure find plenty online....

Yep. Contracts are all over the place. Social contracts, though, are informal understandings, like don't be a jerk to other players.

 

[pemerton]

When we talk about "Player agency" (which we do a lot around here) usually we are talking about the ability of the players to make informed decisions that impact the outcome of play.

I am curious is folks think there is such a thing as "GM agency" with a similar definition. More importantly, I am wondering if folks think if there are styles or elements of play that limit "GM agency" in a meaningful way.

It seems to me that we can talk about the extent to which the GM contributes to the content of the shared fiction, just as we can in respect of players.

And absolutely this is something that can be affected by system/approach. For instance, in running a railroad module like Dead Gods or Expedition to the Demonweb Pits, or Bastion of Broken Souls as written, the GM decides nearly everything about the shared fiction. The players contribute some colour and characterisation. They may affect the outcomes of individual combat encounters, but the module typically has advice for the GM on how to make those outcomes not matter overall (eg in Bastion of Broken Souls, if the PCs kill the main antagonist then the GM is advised to introduce a trio of second string antagonists).

generally player agency is always important regardless of rules system.

I don't agree, A traditional CoC module won't work if the players expect or assert agency. To work, it depends upon the players accepting the GM's control over how events unfold and what their outcomes are, at least up until the climax where the GM might leave it open for the PCs to succeed or fail in stopping the cult/ritual/creatures/whatever it is.

Likewise the D&D modules I've mentioned above will break down if the GM tries to run them as written and the player expect or assert agency.

This is the PbtA element I was originally alluding to. Do those games contrain GM Agency more than traditional RPGs because they tell you what happens when a roll is successful? If so, how and why? D&D tells you what happens when a PC hits or a monster fails a save. But, at the same, time, the GM in 5E has a lot of latitude to determine results from other kinds of actions and rolls.

There are many ways in which (say) Apocalypse constrains the GM, compared to (say) CoC.

The single most important way to see the constraints is to consider the core GM moves: announce badness, provide an opportunity, put someone in a spot, and similar.

Each of the key notions of badness, opportunity, a spot and so on is relative to a goal or hope. And it is the players who provide those goals or hopes (the principles that underlies this is be a fan of the PCs).

We can see just from this alone how different the play experience is going to be - including the constraints on the GM - from a typical CoC module, or Dead Gods, or whatever.

 

[Umbran]

You can sure find plenty online....

What I can find online really doesn't speak to what the millions of players are doing at home. I don't think most of them have written Social Contracts.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

What I can find online really doesn't speak to what the millions of players are doing at home. I don't think most of them have written Social Contracts.

To be honest, I am a little shocked to find out that there are many groups that require written contracts in order to play D&D. What, do you sue for breach of contract if Derek doesn't pay for the pizza?

Usually, "Don't be a jerk," is implied, but an oral statement should suffice.

 

[Reynard]

What I can find online really doesn't speak to what the millions of players are doing at home. I don't think most of them have written Social Contracts.

I have never once in nearly 40 years encountered a "written social contract" for playing D&D, excepting perhaps the RPGA bylaws.