Is "GM Agency" A Thing?

[pemerton]

Isn't the content established by the module?

A book which only one person reads can't establish a shared fiction. Some member of the group of people (or maybe more than one) has to perform that task.

 

[FrogReaver]

A book which only one person reads can't establish a shared fiction. Some member of the group of people (or maybe more than one) has to perform that task.

I don’t agree. If a Group agrees to play a module then the module establishes the fiction (at least the modules part). The DM in that case just relays what is established.

 

[Reynard]

I don’t agree. If a Group agrees to play a module then the module establishes the fiction (at least the modules part). The DM in that case just relays what is established.

Are members of the group policing the GM's running of the module? Do they veto any additions, changes or omissions the GM incorporates?

 

[FrogReaver]

Are members of the group policing the GM's running of the module?

Yes via social contract.

Do they veto any additions, changes or omissions the GM incorporates?

Yes via social contract.

 

[Reynard]

Yes via social contract.


Yes via social contract.

I have never seem that happen. Moreover, I have never seen it happen where a group demanded a module be run precisely by the book with no modifications. And players who acted that entitled would certainly be looking for a different GM and I would hope they never found one. The GM isn't your servant.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I see a general correlation between the use of the phrase “mother may I?” and attempts to limit GM agency. Some people don’t seem to want GMs to use their own judgment to adjudicate, and would rather have clearly defined rules and dice rolls.

I'm never at all shy about saying that maximizing the amount of time a GM has to apply judgment calls is not a virtue; I've probably felt that way for 40 years now. But that's a discussion for wars about "Rulings not Rules" more than this particular topic.

 

[pemerton]

I don’t agree. If a Group agrees to play a module then the module establishes the fiction (at least the modules part). The DM in that case just relays what is established.

A shared fiction has to be shared. It's there on the tin! If the players haven't read the book, and don't know what it says, the book isn't a shared fiction.

 

[Reynard]

I'm never at all shy about saying that maximizing the amount of time a GM has to apply judgment calls is not a virtue; I've probably felt that way for 40 years now. But that's a discussion for wars about "Rulings not Rules" more than this particular topic.

I mean, prioritizing rules over rulings does kind of imply limiting "GM agency" doesn't it? I'd say it is right on topic.

 

[Thomas Shey]

I have never seem that happen. Moreover, I have never seen it happen where a group demanded a module be run precisely by the book with no modifications. And players who acted that entitled would certainly be looking for a different GM and I would hope they never found one. The GM isn't your servant.

I'd say that turns on how the discussion of running the modules is right out the gate. Under normal circumstances I'd agree with you, gub if the agreement was that the module was going to be run as-is (and the GM signed off on that), I think that's back to the players have a set of expectations the GM should fill there (and if he didn't want to, that should have been spelled out earlier, though in most cases that sort of rigidity shouldn't be assumed by anyone on either side unless it was spellled out).

 

[Thomas Shey]

I mean, prioritizing rules over rulings does kind of imply limiting "GM agency" doesn't it? I'd say it is right on topic.

Only if the only relevant agency is the ability for the GM to change rules. I've got an awful lot of things I do when running games that are my choice other than changing rules; that already well exceeds the options a player, or even a whole group of players have.

Basically, I don't see "has agency" on a GM's end by necessity meaning "has all the marbles".