Is "GM Agency" A Thing?

[Umbran]

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?

Unlikely. But it becomes a reference to what everyone agreed to when a discussion has to be had, or when the GM needs to change what's going on - "Bill, you know we all agreed no PvP this campaign. Please have Grog put the Halfling down."

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Unlikely. But it becomes a reference to what everyone agreed to when a discussion has to be had, or when the GM needs to change what's going on - "Bill, you know we all agreed no PvP this campaign. Please have Grog put the Halfling down."

I wouldn't call that a contract.* I have heard that some (in D&D, at least) some DMs will put out a small paper that has general guidelines for how the campaign will go, which might include everything from house rules to table expectations (no bards, no PvP), but that's simply streamlining the Session 0 discussion.


*And, of course, the "Social Contract" is a phrase that is used to talk about the social norms and mores that govern social interactions, not a written contract.

 

[Umbran]

I wouldn't call that a contract.*

Yeah, well, jargon and all that, amirite?

 

[FrogReaver]

Yeah, well, jargon and all that, amirite?

What exactly do you mean by jargon

 

[Blue]

The concept behind "GM agency" is a thing. So is Vaflaphobia, which is the fear of waffles. (Really.)

I can see why it isn't discussed much though. A GM in a traditional game has a really far line to cross - players willing to leave or stop the game to impinge on it.

Players not doing what the GM wants is no more stopping GM agency than players not getting the exact magic items they want for their characters is stopping player agency. Agency isn't full authorial control over every aspect, players and other both. It's as Reynard said, making informed and meaningful choices that have impact.

The original post mentioned various game systems where the GM's power is more limited. However, by the GM picking to run that game it inherently is their choice to abide by those rules, so it by definition doesn't impinge on their agency. So the line to cross is the same.

Basically, GMs only have as much power as their players grant. But in general players are willing to grant a lot, especially in game systems that encourage the GM to make or change rules if needed.

 

[Emberashh]

This question, imo, speaks exactly to why I am actually an advocate for GMPCs, as well as giving GMs more tools and leeway to act in the world beyond just the rote demands required to run the game.

And that in turn all has roots in how Ive come to write villains in a sandbox environment; they're written such that they will accomplish their own story regardless of how deeply involved the PCs become in it, including not at all. Call it the Thanos principle.

Infinity War was Thanos' movie. He was the protagonist and regardless of what his antagonists did, he had a goal and the agency to pursue it. So whether he faced no resistance at all, or had to claw victory out of far more competant heroes than he actually ended up facing, or if he even lost in the end, his story was still worthwhile.

This, I think, is what made Thanos such a compelling villain (and why Loki and Zemo are the only villains thus far with any staying power, and why Killmonger dying was a horrible decision).

So, circling back to RPG land, you want to write villains like this, and while one can (and should) try to prep the different events of their story ahead of time, so that you'll always have the pieces you need ready to go, the only way to really nail down the Thanos principle is to give them agency; they need to be played, because otherwise they will struggle to come off as authentically reacting to the players moves against them. Hence, treating them as a GMPC is a good idea.

But, this isn't limited to villains. Allies to the players can be written this way too, but those have other considerations as they also have to both be likeable and reinforce the player's own agency in interacting with them.

This can be seen pretty easily in the tendency for random shopkeeps to end up being the more likeable ally characters compared to the more, problematic GMPC that tags along with the party. Shopkeeps by their nature, as usually GMs will make them some kind of likeable kooky, fit the likeability requirement, and their role in the game naturally serves to reinforce the players agency. Shopkeeps give them their choice of ways to further interact with and change the gameworld, and the agency the Shopkeep retains (ie, pay me or GTFO) all feel natural and not undeserved.

So that becomes a useful companion to the Thanos Principle, the Shopkeep Principle. Regardless of the specific role of the GMPC, they need follow that principle in order to be accepted by the players.

Interestingly, Honor Among Thieves actually violated the hell out of that principle with the Paladin character, but thats only because in the context of the movie, the character has to appeal to the audience, not the assumed players behind the other characters. Its a lot easier to use that character like he was (as an overpowered near deus ex machina like device to get them through the Dungeon set piece) when the audience neither has nor expects any agency within the story being told.

But even so, thats not to say if Zenk was written to be as he should have been if the movie was truer to what the same story would be like on a tabletop, that he still couldn't have served a similar role in the film. Theres no shortage of secondary characters in film and television that keep to the principle while also still being really entertaining in their own right, and the excellent portrayal by Regè-Jean Page could have easily been leveraged for this.

Frankly all that really needed to be changed in the sequences he was involved in was to let the rest of the group be more consistently useful. The only real mistake was having them basically be in the background most of the time he was on screen and wasn't engaging them directly.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I wouldn't call that a contract.* I have heard that some (in D&D, at least) some DMs will put out a small paper that has general guidelines for how the campaign will go, which might include everything from house rules to table expectations (no bards, no PvP), but that's simply streamlining the Session 0 discussion.


*And, of course, the "Social Contract" is a phrase that is used to talk about the social norms and mores that govern social interactions, not a written contract.

Yeah, I'd just call that a campaign summary document. The "social contract" is much broader and deeper than that, usually, and like others, I've never seen it written down (because to do so would probably require being pretty blunt about some things).

 

[Committed Hero]

See, to me that's illusionism, which I generally prefer to avoid, but as long as your players never found out I'm sure it was a positive for you and your group.

Illusionism is typically defined as "the encounter happens regardless of what the players decide." But this GM didn't have an encounter in mind. It sounds like he was responding to the actions of the players.

Regarding the main question [sorry], the GM has the ultimate agency to decide to GM in the first place. Certainly different games have different rules that, if GMs don't necessarily have to abide by them, they should at least alert the players when they are not in effect. If my longsword does d8 against all foes, but an NPC's does 1d20, I would expect that I might inflict the same amount if I used his, and be annoyed when that didn't happen.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Absolutely. If we accept that player agency is a coherent concept then GM agency is as well.

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.

Do they though?

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).

Like you say, in such a situation GM just mostly does what the module advices. Their contribution to the fiction is "railroaded" too. I don't think this is a good example of high GM agency situation.

This relates to what I feel often is missed in GM/player agency discussion. It is not so simple that if one loses authority the other gains it and vice versa. Rules and procedures can limit either and how much such limits exist depends on the game being played (Game here not merely meaning the system, but the specific iteration of the game such as playing a certain module.)

 

[Maxperson]

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

I was about to say the same thing. 40 years, dozens of DMs, hundreds of players, and 0 written social contracts. You know what else is 0? The number of social contracts we talked about while using the term social contract. Everything was super informal. Don't cheat. Don't be a jerk. If you play an evil PC, find a way to stick with and support the party. And so on.