Is "GM Agency" A Thing?

[Irlo]

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.

No apology needed. I just didn't understand. We're good.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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 mean you could just as well say that the characters are not living breathing people but just stuff the players make up. Literally true, but kinda misses the point of what the intent is. The players try to make the characters feel like real people and the GM tries to make the world feel real.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

First of all, I don't play WotC D&D anymore, and assuming I do won't give you any insight into my game. I use a variety of D&D adjacent systems, mostly Level Up and OSR-based, some of which do have systems for determining world events outside of the PCs.

I use DM judgement sometimes, based on the state of the situation at the time. I also use random tables. Even when I make the choice, I try to be consistent with the world I created and its current state. My players trust that my decisions are based on those factors, and are not designed to be punative or arbitrary, which I continue to think is the missing element in all this.

I do these things to foster the idea of a living, breathing world that doesn't exist solely for the benefit of a small group of individuals that happened to be controlled at the moment by my friends. That is an idea I believe in and work hard to maintain.

Making a detailed setting is a lot of effort. I'm not going to throw it all away when the PCs change or die, but instead intend and hope to use that setting again for other parties, with the actions of previous PCs still evident.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

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.

Sure, and at least I don’t pretend to completely separate them or even think it is desirable The calculus of what happens is roughly:
1) What makes sense to happen?
2) If several things make sense, what will produce most interesting game?

 

[Thomas Shey]

Sure, and at least I don’t pretend to completely separate them or even think it is desirable The calculus of what happens is roughly:
1) What makes sense to happen?
2) If several things make sense, what will produce most interesting game?

Yeah, I tend to roll the same way, except I'll sometimes step back and go "Okay, did I accidentally set up a situation where the most reasonable responses to things the PCs were fairly likely to do was catastrophic?" If so, I'll kind of let "what makes sense" go in interest to the health of the campaign.

But that's a simple case of not letting myself be shackled by earlier bad decisions on my own part.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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

But isn’t a responsive world what everyone’s kind of striving for? It’s no more specific than living breathing world. It offers no guidance on how to do it nor any distinction between methods of doing so.

I mean, as a general description of a goal? Okay, sure. But it sheds no light on how to achieve that goal.

I mean you could just as well say that the characters are not living breathing people but just stuff the players make up. Literally true, but kinda misses the point of what the intent is. The players try to make the characters feel like real people and the GM tries to make the world feel real.

I don’t think players tend to call what they do portraying “a living breathing person”. Again, it may be a loosely stated goal, but it’s never subbed in for the method.

“How do you play your character?”

“As a living breathing person.”

This is equally useless.

First of all, I don't play WotC D&D anymore, and assuming I do won't give you any insight into my game. I use a variety of D&D adjacent systems, mostly Level Up and OSR-based, some of which do have systems for determining world events outside of the PCs.

I don’t care what game you play. I meant the general you. How does one determine how a thieves guild performs in a city in D&D?

I use DM judgement sometimes, based on the state of the situation at the time. I also use random tables. Even when I make the choice, I try to be consistent with the world I created and its current state. My players trust that my decisions are based on those factors, and are not designed to be punative or arbitrary, which I continue to think is the missing element in all this.

This is all fine. I’m not saying one method is better than another. I just prefer less vague language about it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don’t care what game you play. I meant the general you. How does one determine how a thieves guild performs in a city in D&D?

I generally have NPC write ups for prominent characters, and use that as the base for rolls on tables to determine the actions of those NPCs in their particular areas, checked regularly as time passes in the setting (usually month to month). For example, a thieves' guild may engage in various operations or have events happen that effect them, based on table rolls and affected by the abilities of the guild (its leaders and membership).

 

[Reynard]

But isn’t a responsive world what everyone’s kind of striving for? It’s no more specific than living breathing world. It offers no guidance on how to do it nor any distinction between methods of doing so.

I mean, as a general description of a goal? Okay, sure. But it sheds no light on how to achieve that goal.

I have lost the thread on what you are asking. I explained how one determines what the thieves guild does: it was established at the outset and would happen that way unless the PCs did something to change it. In this hypothetical, they didn't, and so it occurred as designed.

It would happen the same way if the PCs stayed in the city but did not get involved. They would see the moves being made (or at least their obvious outcomes) and they would keep shopping or vying to be the best haberdasher in town or whatever it was, but so long as the PCs did not do anything that affected the thieves guild, one day they would wake up to find the burgermeister hanging from a gibbet and guild thugs acting as cops. How did I get there? I made it up. Or maybe I rolled on a bunch of charts before play began (Shadowdark and Worlds Without Number both have a wealth of relevant charts that could result in exactly this scenario), but I don't think it matters which method I used any more than it matters whether I crafted the dungeon or rolled it up randomly.

 

[Lanefan]

But, again, this is just the DM rolling up the plot wagon. The players have zero influence over this. They aren't there.

They aren't there because they chose not to be there. They could have had influence by staying put and dealing with the Thieves' threat, but they instead chose to go elsewhere and do other things.

Complaining the players have zero influence when that lack of influence comes about by the players' own proactive choice seems a bit rich, to say the least.

The DM has decided that the thieves guild has taken over the town. Great plot hook. Maybe? The players had zero influence in designing the town. They maybe know a couple of NPC's in the town, if, after several months of play, they haven't forgotten them already.

We aren't given info as to how the PCs otherwise relate to the town e.g. whether it's their home town or whether it's a place they just happen to pass through now and then, or whatever.

Again, this is all 100% the players passively engaging in the setting. When they came back to town, it could have easily been a dragon has set up camp and is demanding tribute. Or maybe the local druids are getting up to shenanigans. Or goblins did it. Or whatever plot the DM has decided is going to be the adventure in this town.

At no point are the players active.

By their own choice. They could have been active here and maybe prevented the mess from occurring. Now they have another choice, as to whether to be active in helping clean it up.

 

[Lanefan]

Sure, and at least I don’t pretend to completely separate them or even think it is desirable The calculus of what happens is roughly:
1) What makes sense to happen?
2) If several things make sense, what will produce most interesting game?

For me, 2) above would read "If several things make sense, how do I determine what in fact does happen and, if that determination is random, what odds do I set for each likely-ish outcome?".