Is "GM Agency" A Thing?

[billd91]

Not really. Those consequences that you keep talking about are not actual consequences. They’re just what the dm thinks will be fun for the next adventure.

That’s not a consequence. A civil war after killing the emperor is not the only possibility. There are many. And allowing the players to be involved in determining those things means that they are actually thinking beyond their character and engaging with the broader world.

That there could be a variety of different consequences doesn't make the ones chosen by the GM "not consequences". There's some art to the choices, sure. And, yes, some may be chosen because they'll be particularly appealing or significant to the PCs. That doesn't make them not plausible consequences of their actions (or inactions in some cases).

 

[Maxperson]

Show me on the character sheet where the bad GM hurt you.

While I understand the point you are trying to make and agree with it, that is an inappropriate way to make it.

 

[Cadence]

Really? Every single example in this thread has been a negative. Not one single positive was even suggested. Even the idea of a positive consequence was called unbelievable.

• I said there should be positive ones too back in #410.
• @Lanefan in #416 mentions that maybe the thieves were run out of town while the party was away and in #419 he mentions maybe a new temple to Jupiter was built while they were away (I'm assuming those were both meant to be non-bad things from how they were phrased)..
• @Maxperson did in the very next post after the one you're replying to here (#430).

Who called a positive consequence unbelievable?

 

[Maxperson]

I’m don’t think it’s about foolishness or disingenuousness, really. I think that folks tend to describe their process in ways that are more vague than is helpful. “Living breathing world” doesn’t help the discussion because it covers such a variety of methods.

That's like saying that "sales techniques" isn't helpful, because there are a variety of techniques used to sell things. Having multiple techniques to creating a living, breathing world categorized under "living, breathing world" is just as helpful.

 

[Maxperson]

And that’s fine if that’s something the GM enjoys… I get it; I spent years doing that kind of stuff myself. But as a player, if this stuff keeps coming up in play no matter what we do, it absolutely comes across as the GM trying to force their story. And it comes across that way because that’s what it is.

No. That's completely wrong. If the necromancer goes on to help the poor starving kids or enslave another town, the PCs never have to go engage at all. Nothing is being forced on them. If the artificer creates a gift to give the PCs the next time they are in town in thanks for rescuing his daughter, they don't have to accept. Nothing is being forced on them.

If the DM is forcing anything on the players, it has nothing at all to do with a "living, breathing world" and everything to do with bad DMs railroading.

 

[Maxperson]

Not really. Those consequences that you keep talking about are not actual consequences. They’re just what the dm thinks will be fun for the next adventure.

The bolded is incorrect. It doesn't matter one whit whether the PCs engage or not. The living, breathing world happens regardless and has nothing to do with any desire the DM might have for the PCs.

The only opinion that matters about what will be fun for the next adventure is the players' opinion. They will decide what to engage with and what not to engage with.

That’s not a consequence. A civil war after killing the emperor is not the only possibility. There are many. And allowing the players to be involved in determining those things means that they are actually thinking beyond their character and engaging with the broader world.

It is a consequence. That there can be and often are many possible consequences. Picking one doesn't making not a consequence. For example.

As a consequence for stealing you might...

1) be made to give the item back and apologize.
2) be made to do community service.
3) be made to do jail time.
4) be spanked by your parents.
5) be grounded.
6) be let go without any punishment t all.
7) any other consequence or combination of consequences.

Other possibilities that are not engaged don't make the one(s) selected not consequences.

 

[Reynard]

And allowing the players to be involved in determining those things means that they are actually thinking beyond their character and engaging with the broader world.

They get involved in determining those things by doing things in the game with their characters. They have goals and take actions to achieve those goals.

Now, I suspect you are going to argue that it doesn't matter because the GM is just going to write his fan-fic no matter what the players do or want, and all I can say to that is: get a better GM. The incessant assertion that all GMs are bad is exhausting.

 

[Cadence]

They get involved in determining those things by doing things in the game with their characters. They have goals and take actions to achieve those goals.

Now, I suspect you are going to argue that it doesn't matter because the GM is just going to write his fan-fic no matter what the players do or want, and all I can say to that is: get a better GM. The incessant assertion that all GMs are bad is exhausting.

And, I would love (as I think @Hussar has suggested before) for the DMG to have more and more transparent advice on helping new GMs be better GMs. And it feels like the PHB could call out some of the consensus bad behavior so that the players knew what was going on.

 

[Umbran]

Really? Every single example in this thread has been a negative. Not one single positive was even suggested. Even the idea of a positive consequence was called unbelievable.

I usually avoid using the word "semantics", but in this case, I think it really is. Folks have taken the word "consequences" to really only refer to "negative results". Positive results of action still happen, but they are not filed under that term.

 

[Reynard]

And, I would love (as I think @Hussar has suggested before) for the DMG to have more and more transparent advice on helping new GMs be better GMs. And it feels like the PHB could call out some of the consensus bad behavior so that the players knew what was going on.

RPGs are a conversation. GMs and players can just, you know, talk to one another.
"We want to replace the emperor with a democratic form of government, so we are going to kill him."
"Well, there are some other powerful figures that would absolutely love to fill that vaccuum. You could end up causing a civil war."
"Okay, let's figure out who those are and see if we can manipulate one into being on our side, and we will eliminate the others before we kill the Emperor."
"Okay. Give me a Political Schmooze roll."