A Question Of Agency?

[Bedrockgames]

It was compared to "Enlightened Despotism" or occasionally "Benevolent Despotism," as in the 18th century political philosophy regarding absolute monarchs who pursued reforms inspired by the Enlightenment. "Enlightened Despotism" is the field-appropriate term. "Despot" in this sense is not a "tyrant" or "dictator," which shows a misunderstanding of what I was saying and possibly a lack of historical awareness, which is fine.

All of those were used as comparisons. There was also a comparison to players as peasants in these games. The enlightened despot was raised after I objected to dictator saying something like the GMs position was dependent on securing the players trust (can't recall my exact phrasing). And when Enlightened Despot was raised, I objected to that too, for obvious reasons that I shouldn't have to explain

 

[hawkeyefan]

This is probably the aspect that would go over least well. The players would definitely expect me to have a city developed, and even if there were details of it they were probing that I had invented yet, they would expect those details to come from me (since i know all the basic details of the city enough that I can extrapolate what ought to be in a given area, and whom). That said, where they choose to explore, is definitely going to help detemine what get's shaped in the session. It is just they wouldn't want to be calling the shots on the details in any way unless it was something their characters were making (for example we had a group take over a section of buildings in town and convert them into a headquarters, so through the efforts of their characters, the effectively added someting to the map. Also I would have as many details pinned down about groups in the city as possible (so a city map is likely to have the headquarters of gangs and sects marked------though there have been time I have left that kind of detail fuzzy for a given group----but normally that is hammered out)

I think Blades would run just fine with the GM determining all those setting details if the players chose not to offer any suggestions. There's certainly nothing that requires players to contribute to that kind of thing. That probably does come up more in some of the more PC centered elements.

One of the guiding principles is for the GM to ask questions of the players about their characters. So if you have a Whisper PC (the kind of wizard or spellcaster class of the setting) and that character uses their ability to Attune to the Ghost Field (the setting's spirit realm which exists alongside the material world) the GM should ask the player what that looks like, and how it works. The mechanics are clear, but the specifics are up to the group to decide.

And I've found that starting point for player input is often a nice first step toward more, and that players become more willing to contribute ideas for the setting in broader ways. That smaller PC centric stuff works as an example of how that kind of input can work, and that it doesn't cause the whole setting to come crashing down. This is just another way in which I think this game promotes agency on the part of the players.

 

[Ovinomancer]

You have the ideal of fairness, and there is subjectivity there, but I think there is a difference between a GM striving for it, and one who doesn't (and I mean genuinely striving for it, which my experience with a GM like Rob is you can sense it at the table). There is also a difference between a GM who succeeds more at achieving that state at the table than one who doesn't (there are GMs who are consistently regarded as more fair than others). Further, having done plenty of competitive sports, even in the sports arena, fairness is often disputed because everyone is investing emotions in outcomes, seeing the event from slightly different points of view, etc. Just because that fairness is not going to be universally agreed upon, is hard to achieve, and perhaps an impossible goal to attain in its 'platonic form', it is still a horizon you can move towards, and again, there is a difference between a referee who strives to be fair in sports and one who simply calls things based on who he wants to win. So a GM, in my view can be more fair, or less fair in a given moment, and when people throw up this argument about how its just 'spin', I just don't think that matches what I have seen through the years. Or at the very least, it dismisses a concept that does actually matter, based on it being more complicated than this GM is fair and that one isn't.

Okay, but this isn't really addressing the point I was making at all. I already said that I'm 100% certain that good faith and effort is involved. That's given, and I understand how that effort can make a game more fun. However, that effort is leveraging a system where the core mechanic is that the GM decides. One person has the say. Regardless of how well or poorly (and I believe well applies to the games in question), the regime is such that the agency belongs to the GM, not the players. Again, this is fine and dandy -- it is how these systems are designed to run, and they clearly deliver fun in this regard, even with less effort than is demonstrated here -- elsewise why would it be the system of the most popular, by more than a country mile, system in the hobby? This part is undisputed -- it's a fun and valid way to run.

 

[FrogReaver]

All of those were used as comparisons. There was also a comparison to players as peasants in these games. The enlightened despot was raised after I objected to dictator saying something like the GMs position was dependent on securing the players trust (can't recall my exact phrasing). And when Enlightened Despot was raised, I objected to that too, for obvious reasons that I shouldn't have to explain

It’s amazing how often the context of a discussion is left out and your post treated as if it’s the first one in the sequence on the matter. Quite frustrating.

 

[Ovinomancer]

It was compared to "Enlightened Despotism" or occasionally "Benevolent Despotism," as in the 18th century political philosophy regarding absolute monarchs who pursued reforms inspired by the Enlightenment. "Enlightened Despotism" is the field-appropriate term. "Despot" in this sense is not a "tyrant" or "dictator," which shows a misunderstanding of what I was saying and possibly a lack of historical awareness, which is fine.

I did use the term dictator, but I used it as Benevolent Dictator. I think that dictator, given the definitions of the words, is exactly what I meant. I see benevolent despot as an oxymoron? There seems to be a lot of connotations mixed up into the denotations.

Perhaps affable autocrat?

 

[Ovinomancer]

It’s amazing how often the context of a discussion is left out and your post treated as if it’s the first one in the sequence on the matter. Quite frustrating.

Ah, the other cookware has been covered in soot by the fire. Well spotted!

 

[Aldarc]

I did use the term dictator, but I used it as Benevolent Dictator. I think that dictator, given the definitions of the words, is exactly what I meant. I see benevolent despot as an oxymoron? There seems to be a lot of connotations mixed up into the denotations.

Perhaps affable autocrat?

Perhaps, but Enlightened Despotism or Enlightened Absolutism are the terms typically most associated with the rulership of monarchs like Frederick the Great, Catherine the Great, and Emperor Joseph II. It does seem to describe how many "traditional" GMs have described their benevolent, caretaker roles or even relationship to their players. Maybe not in this thread, where the goal seems to be pretending that players have absolute freedom under their reigns, but it does come up considerably in other threads about other topics, wherein one can see the gloves come off about players who threaten that authority.

 

[prabe]

I did use the term dictator, but I used it as Benevolent Dictator. I think that dictator, given the definitions of the words, is exactly what I meant. I see benevolent despot as an oxymoron? There seems to be a lot of connotations mixed up into the denotations.

Perhaps affable autocrat?

I think it's possible (and reasonable) for a GM who operates under principled constraints (I'll grant self-imposed) and is responsive to the players to feel as though being described as a dictator or despot is incorrect, because it isn't consistent with their experience. In reality, social pressures and table norms (in addition to the self-imposed constraints I mentioned) go a long way toward making the table a lot less ... autocratic than y'all's descriptions seem to imply.

 

[FrogReaver]

@Ovinomancer A GM deciding something about the setting or NPC reactions to player actions isn’t removing player agency any more than a GM calling for a roll to determine those things does.

Your process:
Character Acts -> DM uses fiction to set DC of check (possible adjustments after) -> player rolls and outcome is determined.

Our process:
Character Acts -> DM uses fiction to either (a), (b) or (c)

(a): dm determined fiction would result in success
(b): dm determined fiction would result in failure
(c): dm determines fictional result is uncertain in which case the fiction is used to set the dc and the player rolls and outcome is determined.

there is a process to how resolution works. It’s not simply fiat. It’s also nearly identical to your process.

 

[Bedrockgames]

I think it's possible (and reasonable) for a GM who operates under principled constraints (I'll grant self-imposed) and is responsive to the players to feel as though being described as a dictator or despot is incorrect, because it isn't consistent with their experience. In reality, social pressures and table norms (in addition to the self-imposed constraints I mentioned) go a long way toward making the table a lot less ... autocratic than y'all's descriptions seem to imply.

And this is what the whole fairness thing is getting at