Is "GM Agency" A Thing?

[Micah Sweet]

Nope. Perfectly fine. I mean that’s the way DnD has been presented since pretty much day 1. Fine.

But,

A) that’s not a “living world” as the term was being presented as if events in the world progress all over the world even stuff that has zero impact on the Pcs.

And

B) the point has always been that perhaps allowing the players to take a more active hand in determining those evens might be a way to increase player engagement and reduce dm workload.

I'm actually fine with my workload, and my players (based on what they've told me and what I've observed) are fine with their level of engagement, so personally I have no issue at my table with the traditional division.

Speaking generally, I just don't believe that a perceived lack of player engagement stems significantly from players not getting to do enough worldbuilding, and I'm not sure how much less work such an arrangement would actually be for the DM, as integration of many different points of view by said DM would still be needed.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The alternative is letting the players have access to some degree in determining setting and world building stuff.

I still feel that would be a different game. A potentially fun and certainly valid game, but a different one nonetheless.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What @hawkeyfan said, 1000%.

The GM establishes the stakes. The GM establishes the choice context. The GM decides the consequences. That is not player agency. It's the GM telling the players a story. The fact that the GM might have been prompted to tell a different story had the players made a different choice doesn't change this fact.

Your definition of player agency is not universally shared.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Wouldn't most reasonable PCs be at least passingly interested in news (and thus players be interested in hearing said news) of what's going on beyond the scope of their own immediate endeavours, much as we in the real world follow news of events half a world away that may or may not ever have any significant effect on our lives?

If yes (and for me that "yes" is a given), then the GM now and then narrating news from elsewhere is a useful thing for said GM to do; never mind it's entirely possible that the contents of said news might affect what the players have their PCs do next, or further downstream. And it reinforces the notion that the setting is a bigger place than just what the PCs see and-or interact with.

For example, the Queen died last year; and while her passing may not matter much to our day-to-day lives in Canada and Australia we all still made note of it as an event when we heard about it. Same would be true in a game setting: if the reigning monarch were to die, sooner or later that would become a topic of local conversation and the PCs will hear about it even through all the intrigues they're planning. How can there be any problem with this?

The problem here as I see it is that some folks here don't want the setting to exist in any way outside of what the Players/PCs experience, and all this pushback is trying to lay the groundwork of "what you want is a delusion you tell yourself and your players" to support that preference.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

So if the game isn’t focused on the city, who cares what’s happening there? If for some reason it becomes relevant again, it can be determined then. There’s no need at all to maintain that kind of information when it’s not immediately relevant to play.

So I don't think it necessarily hugely matters when the thing is determined as long as it is. That being said, I feel keeping this roughly in real time might have potential to generate more living world. Locations in campaign worlds are rarely completely isolated, and what happens in one affects neighbouring areas, people and news travel etc.

 

[Micah Sweet]

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.

As a player or a DM, I see zero issue with the players not thinking beyond their characters. To me, that's what players do. If you want to play a different and just as valid game where players do other stuff, then go for it. No one here is telling you you shouldn't.

 

[AnotherGuy]

I'm not even sure what people mean by "merely colour". In stories how things are described often matters just as much than what is being described. It is affects greatly how things are perceived and how they hit emotionally. So I'm not really comfortable with dismissing expression as "colour" or "pantomime."

Yeah upthread I mentioned how colour can help one with immersion and for many a Trad game, immersion is one of the goals. I tend to think of colour as not just background material but rather the element of breathing life into a vision.

It is great when players, through their ingenuity, use what you intended for colour in a meaningful way.

 

[Umbran]

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

Mod Note:
You perhaps don't realize, but in this, you are effectively belittling sexual assault. Maybe in the future, find another expression. Thanks.

 

[Maxperson]

Your definition of player agency is not universally shared.

Yeah. It's not even close to being universal.

 

[hawkeyefan]

From your posts on EW, you've stated that you've had experience with trad games before so I think it is safe to assume that you recognise the concept and the myriad ways one can go about achieving said living breathing world.
That one cannot put into words which satisfies some posters is not hugely unfamiliar terrain here - when plenty posters here continue to struggle to define what a roleplaying game is.

You’re right. But I think the way to possibly change that is to point it out. To discuss things openly and clearly in an attempt to get rid of the vaguely worded mysticism that tends to dominate these discussions.

Immersion is a goal for many a table.
The living breathing world assists in attaining that goal for those tables - EVEN IF it's just through colour (refer @pemerton's post #438)

Immersion is different for many people. If I’m a player in a game and decide to have my character leave a city, and everywhere I go, I keep hearing about what’s going on in that city, there’s a good chance it has the opposite effect… that I’ll feel like I’m being chased by the GM’s plot. Which doesn’t evoke a “living breathing world”.

Obviously this may not always be the case. It depends on many factors. But I don’t think that we can chalk all this stuff up to immersion.