Is "GM Agency" A Thing?

[hawkeyefan]

I'm reading here that you just don't like D&D (please correct me if I'm wrong). That's fine; there lots of games I don't like, but that doesn't mean doing things differently than D&D is better or worse than any other way except to the individual.

No, I like D&D just fine. I just recognize that it has less agency... sorry, less player agency... than many other games.

But it has all kinds of agency for the GM to have solo fun in between sessions!

 

[Thomas Shey]

Playing out means exactly that. Did you roll initiative? Track hit points and healing? Roll attacks? No? Then you didn’t play it out. You simply declared x to be true.

Okay. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Cadence]

Perhaps that's this idea is fought for here and in gaming. Because it would essentially be a mild form of delusion in real life to expect nothing to change without you knowing about it, and that delusion can be comforting.

On the other hand, to each individual, isn't the world they can't see essentially "random to them" still. It's just a constrained random.

Say you're in an interior room with no windows getting ready to go out and your phone has no reception, and there was an x% chance of rain last time you checked. What do you think about the chance of rain outside right now?

In truth it is either raning or not raining, but it feels odd to look askance at the person who bases whether they bring their umbrella with or not when they head to the door based on that x%.

10%, nah
90%, yup
50%, well if I bring it it will be sunny and if I don't it will rain

As far as constrained, you probably know there isn't a hurricane outside (it would have been in the forecast) or a few feet of rain (it would have seeped under the doors).

Or similarly, don't most people think things like "I hope I did well on that test", "I hope that's not <person I don't like> at the door", etc... when of course the test is already over and it's either that person or it isn't?

 

[Micah Sweet]

On the other hand, to each individual, isn't the world they can't see essentially "random to them" still. It's just a constrained random.

Say you're in an interior room with no windows getting ready to go out and your phone has no reception, and there was an x% chance of rain last time you checked. What do you think about the chance of rain outside right now?

In truth it is either raning or not raining, but it feels odd to look askance at the person who bases whether they bring their umbrella with or not when they head to the door based on that x%.

10%, nah
90%, yup
50%, well if I bring it it will be sunny and if I don't it will rain

As far as constrained, you probably know there isn't a hurricane outside (it would have been in the forecast) or a few feet of rain (it would have seeped under the doors).

Or similarly, don't most people think things like "I hope I did well on that test", "I hope that's not <person I don't like> at the door", etc... when of course the test is already over and it's either that person or it isn't?

Most people do think those things. I think them myself sometimes. It doesn't mean they have validity outside of that person's head.

 

[Irlo]

I don't think that the world should "freeze" when the players look away, but I also want to acknoweldge that the off-screen events do not flow as some natural, living world that runs on it's own. In most D&D games, off-screen events are DM-driven without player influence.

Perhaps what we're talking about is not most D&D games (as if that matters at all).

I don't really understand what you're trying to convey. I'm making efforts to ensure that nothing I say is interpretted to apply universally to all games and gamers, that that I'm expressing opinions and not judgments and certainly not Truths from on high.

I gathered from you've said in this thread and others that you (like me) do run a D&D game in which off-screen events are DM-driven without player influence. Did I miss something?

 

[Thomas Shey]

Precisely.

So, when the process is for the GM to decide what happens, instead of saying "living, breathing world" we should say "the stuff the GM wants to happen".

I'm kind of of a leg on either side here, but I think this is overly reductionist.

There's a difference, even if some people kid themselves about whether they're doing it or not, between "the stuff the GM wants to happen" and "the stuff the GM thinks would likely happen". Those are fairly different motives there even if some people end up telling themselves the first is the second, and I'm pretty unwilling to assume no one ever can separate the two apart.

 

[Cadence]

Most people do think those things. I think them myself sometimes. It doesn't mean they have validity outside of that person's head.

A: "All we have are the things in our heads."

B: "Huh?"

A: "I mean, prove to me you're real. I don't think you are."

B: <throws a soda can at them>

A: "WTF!?!?"

B: "Wasn't me, right?"

 

[hawkeyefan]

Informed by the player's choices as expressed through their PCs, with the caveat that, depending on the method of determination (random tables and subsystems), the actual stuff might not be what the GM wants to happen, but rather what the system determined.

What system? What do you use in D&D to determine how a thieves' guild performs when the PCs don't seek to stop them and instead skip town for a while?

Also, why can't the GM of such a game decide that another city faction or visiting adventuring party deals with the guild? Now they're heralded as the heroes of the city and when the PCs return, that's how the world has lived and breathed while they were gone?

There's no way to remove all GM judgment from the process, and I wouldn't want to. But having it be nothing but GM judgment seems to me a very different thing than using a randomizer of some sort. Hence why the "living, breathing world" phrase isn't very useful.

And don't get me wrong... there's absolutely nothing wrong with "the GM decides what happens". I just think we should be honest about it, and differentiate it from other methods.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't really understand what you're trying to convey. I'm making efforts to ensure that nothing I say is interpretted to apply universally to all games and gamers, that that I'm expressing opinions and not judgments and certainly not Truths from on high.

I gathered from you've said in this thread and others that you (like me) do run a D&D game in which off-screen events are DM-driven without player influence. Did I miss something?

If I misinterpreted your posts, I'm sorry. I am sensitive to what seem to be claims that popularity is an important factor in gaming beyond financial success, and @Hussar 's comments riled me up something fierce. Again, I apologize.

 

[Reynard]

Hence why the "living, breathing world" phrase isn't very useful.

And don't get me wrong... there's absolutely nothing wrong with "the GM decides what happens". I just think we should be honest about it, and differentiate it from other methods.

Fair enough. How about "responsive world"? The world has a state and trajectory, but ones that will change based on player input and actions.