Is "GM Agency" A Thing?

[Umbran]

Yeah, that makes sense to me.

The thing I find curious is that the consistency they are willing to get in return is not necessarily a high likelihood of success, but just a known probability.

Yep. There's an honesty in that - it isn't the they want to make sure they succeed, they just want to have the information to make choices.

 

[Li Shenron]

This came up in another thread and I want to see what folks think about the idea.

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.

For my own part, if we are talking about traditional RPGs (like D&D or GURPS or whatever), I don't think "GM agency" is a meaningful term. It is all "GM agency" because the rules start with the premise that the GM decides on the rules, and all decisions ultimately flow from the GM. While a GM may decide to allow game mechanics, die rolls or player decisions to inform or usurp that decision make, the GM still ultimately has the authority to change any decision. There is no mechanism in traditional RPGs that can limit "GM agency."

Very interesting topic... I am not sure I fully understand myself the meaning of "agency" so feel free to correct me. Also, I haven't read the full thread on player's agency as it is way too long for me to bear...

Starting from the players' side, I can think of a certain difference between large-scale and small-scale agency. An example of large-scale agency could be "let's attack the enemy stronghold"; I can't imagine any ruleset regulating this scale of agency, such as by having a rule that says "the PCs can only attack one enemy stronghold per week" for example; I can however imagine the players feeling lack of agency if the DM purposefully prevents them to even try this course of action, or seems to force her way to negating any chance or consequence. An example of small-scale agency may be "I want to shoot an arrow at the evil wizard's wand to break it"; at that scale, the game is likely to have a rule about if and how you can target and break an object in someone's possession, and there is a possibility that the rule even makes that flat-out impossible; a player may feel lack of agency for being denied to even try, even though probably the rule is meant to protect both PC and NPCs and avoid the risk that a move that looks cool once a while is discovered to be a must-do tactic in every single fight. In all cases, players are generally motivated by the purpose of winning the game's challenges by making good decisions that make them feel they are playing the game well. Of course if they start to feel like they can't make decisions (either because they don't have enough information to choose properly, or because either the rules or the DM tells them "no, you can't) or that they decisions don't really matter much, they experience lack of agency.

On the DM's side, the job is a lot more complex. A "railroading DM" might feel like her primary purpose is to make the story unfolds in a preset way, perhaps even with only two possible outcomes: the PCs win according to the script, or the PCs die. "Agency" for such a DM is only about pulling the game back onto the rails if it seems to stray away, except that in a sense it is not much of an agency at all, it is rather a self-imposed obligation. But a typical DM has much bigger purposes: they are trying to engage the players by making the game interesting at multiple levels (story, tactics, roleplay...), they are trying to balance the spotlights of different PCs, they are trying to preserve consistency and reliability of options, they are trying to provide challenges that are neither pushovers nor frustrating, they are trying to offer variation and novelty in every single session, they are trying to reward character build choices, they are even trying to build a nice room atmosphere... Perhaps the "agency" here lies in whether the DM has the feeling that all these tasks aren't actively impeded by the rules of the game OR by a published adventure's narrative (assuming the DM is using one).

How much can the rules of the game really take DM's agency away? Well, I do personally find that some rules can actually do that.

There are rulesets which are IMO excessively generous with the PC's success chances. Maybe they allow retrying tasks indefinitely, they allow to stack bonuses, they offer "luck/hero" wildcards to turn a success into a failure... it's not like I can pinpoint a single one of these being the culprit, but when a game has many failsafe mechanisms in place, as a DM I might get the feeling that in fact the challenge is lost and I can't do my job of avoiding pushovers.

Another example of rules that take away my DM's agency is quick "character-changing" options. These include for example: special character classes (or whatever) that totally changes the role of a PC (e.g. the 3e Factotum prestige class); "retrain on a long rest" abilities; having spellcasting characters with a too large and varied known spell lists to prepare from. These can seriously destroy many of my job purposes including balancing the spotlights, rewarding character builds and again providing meaningful challenges! If one of the PC can just "sleep over it" and turn into something significantly different, they can steal another PC's spotlight and ruin the value of their build, as well as bypassing a challenge too easily.

I am very sorry to see how many rules get added to the game because of the sad assumption that your DM is not capable of rewarding you, or even worse will actively try to work against you. Players asked not to have a Ranger's favored enemy or terrain because they were sure their DM will let them fight other enemies in other terrains than their favourite... that's very lame player's attitude IMO, to assume your DM is lame makes you a lame player! Similarly, with the upcoming Weapon Mastery rule that you can just change your mastery weapon on a long rest, out of fear that your DM will surely make you find an awesome magic weapon that doesn't match your mastery. These take away my DM's agency in the sense that now it doesn't matter anymore that I give your Ranger a choice to lead the party through the desert instead of the jungle, or into goblin territory instead of orcs, or reward your good story choice with an axe instead of a sword: it's getting slowly reduced to go wherever, fight whatever, find whatever, it doesn't make a difference. And the funny thing is that this is actually perceived as more player's agency, when in reality if it matters less then it is actually less player's agency.

Switching back to the task of adjudicating and resolving in-game situations, I generally tend to see rulesets as toolboxes, so usually I am not overly concerned by the rules being a restriction for me as a DM. But if I were to play more by the RAW, I would certainly find many parts of each RPG annoying and restricting. For example, the 5e PHB is purposefully vague and open-ended in many resolution rules, for example searching for traps and hidden things, seemingly with the purpose of helping each DM find their own methods and style in managing this aspect of the game. However, the DMG has an actually more precise section that even sounds a bit too much like "you MUST follow this sequence of checks" which isn't even a very well thought-out set of checks if you look carefully. That's clearly something that reduces DM's agency. Luckily, few DM reads the DMG as we all know

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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

Probably not, but if the point of the game is to play a given module, then the GM is probably going to at least roughly follow it, and to me it is blatantly obvious that in such a situation the GM has way less agency than if they had a freedom to make it all up.

 

[damiller]

It's not a binary, though. The GM runs a lot less of the show in PbtA than they do in D&D or GURPS, by any measure. It would certainly be reasonable for different people to find running games more or less fun based on how "in charge" they are of events.

This is exactly why I don't like Masks: a New Generation, as a GM.

 

[ilgatto]

This came up in another thread and I want to see what folks think about the idea.

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.

For my own part, if we are talking about traditional RPGs (like D&D or GURPS or whatever), I don't think "GM agency" is a meaningful term. It is all "GM agency" because the rules start with the premise that the GM decides on the rules, and all decisions ultimately flow from the GM. While a GM may decide to allow game mechanics, die rolls or player decisions to inform or usurp that decision make, the GM still ultimately has the authority to change any decision. There is no mechanism in traditional RPGs that can limit "GM agency."

There are other kinds of games -- story now, for example -- that I think do define the GM much more as "just another participant" and therefore include rules and mechanisms that inherently limit what options are available to the GM. In these cases, "GM agency" is just a different kind of "player agency" because the GM is just another kind of player. Granted, I am not overly familiar with games of this type and it is totally possible I am misunderstanding the nature of, say, GM moves in Apocalypse World as a mechanism that defines and restricts "GM agency" in a way similar to player moves. I am sure @pemerton and @overgeeked will be along to correct me soon enough.

So, what do you think. Is "GM agency" a meaningful term and worth talking about in a similar context to "player agency"?

First, I'd like to define the DM GM as an entity that does not exist. Second, I'd say that they are the phenomenon in charge of "reality", of representing the laws of the multiverse - even if these are of their own making. If so, that makes the GM as limited in their options as the PCs - for all have to abide by these laws.

I would therefore say that the players are the only ones at the table who have any "agency", for it is they who make the decisions as to what they are going to do, who "act" in light of specific situations.

As to the concept of "GM agency", I'd say that that would mean "allowing the GM to alter the laws of the/their multiverse for... reasons".

In this light, I'm not sure I'd be on board with that, for it would likely lead to violating "social contracts", "suspension of disbelief", and "fidgeting with dice".

However, it would be foolish to suggest that no DM has never "loosely interpreted rules", if only to further enjoyment of the game.

So does a GM have "agency"? Apparently so.

 

[pemerton]

So what is a DM doing if they're running a module (without changing anything)?

They are a participant in establishing a shared fiction. In the railroad-y modules I mentioned, they are the leading participant in that respect.

There are two principal ways they will do that. They will use the material from the module to frame scenes, asserting a very high degree of authority in that respect over both constituent elements, and stakes, of the scenes they present. And they will use the material from the module to decide what happens next.

 

[pemerton]

The thing I find curious is that the consistency they are willing to get in return is not necessarily a high likelihood of success, but just a known probability.

As you know, I've been running Torchbearer a bit lately. It has a much higher failure rate, for players' declared actions for their PCs, than does contemporary D&D.

The reason for rolling the dice rather than having the GM decide isn't to try and ensure success. Or even consistency. It's because the participants - players and GM - want to play a game which includes finding out together what happens next.

Eg I believe you read my actual play report in which a player failed a Health check triggered by his character pressing on through bad weather - the result of a sequence of rolls on the Autumn weather table - and as a result I narrated a twist - Turner's bandits turned up again, to try and drive the PCs off. As things turned out, the PCs in fact drove them off, and then (as per the Loot roll) found the barrel at their camp site in the bottom of the Tower of Stars.

I think this is fun and interesting game play! I don't think it wouldn't be enhanced by me as GM just making up what happens (the weather, the consequences of pressing on, what happens when the PCs and the bandits clash, what the PCs find as Loot from the bandits).

 

[R_J_K75]

I think the transition from 2E to 3E had a bad effect on DM agency. 3.x went to great lengths to codify every rule they could think of. I remember DM games in the 2000's and having players throw "pg XXX" from book "I dont give 2 s**ts about" at me saying you're wrong, it says it right here. Good thing 5E somewhat reigned that in.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

They are a participant in establishing a shared fiction. In the railroad-y modules I mentioned, they are the leading participant in that respect.

There are two principal ways they will do that. They will use the material from the module to frame scenes, asserting a very high degree of authority in that respect over both constituent elements, and stakes, of the scenes they present. And they will use the material from the module to decide what happens next.

This literally does not make sense to me. How can they have high degree of authority while they're basically just quoting a book?

 

[Umbran]

This literally does not make sense to me. How can they have high degree of authority while they're basically just quoting a book?

We should not confuse the ability to influence outcomes with the particular choice of how to do that.

The choice to closely follow a published adventure closely is still a choice, and thereby an exertion of agency. If the GM reads an adventure and thinks, "This written stuff is really cool! I want to make it happen," then making it happen is an exercise of their agency.

Plus, even while they are "quoting a book" (that phrasing sounds a bit loaded with assumptions, to be honest) there's a whole lot of space for the GM to shape events with exactly how they present that information, the detailed choices they make for NPCs, their rule interpretations and applications, and so on.