Is "GM Agency" A Thing?

[Hussar]

Because there are plenty of non-trad games already, and more on the way? I don't see you advocating for trad play in Blades in the Dark, or Marvel Heroic, or Fate. Why does D&D need these things? Or if you want to combine the two, why not support a D&D adjacent game that allows for non-trad play. Does Dungeon World count because of the themes? Maybe that new thing Critical Role is making.

Wow. And I get accused of one true waying?

“Everyone should play the way I want and if you don’t like it, play another game”

I’m thought you were all about accepting different playstyles?

 

[Hussar]

I think the fact that he doesn't recognize that authorship in trad games is a three way relationship between the GM, the Players, and the System itself is illustrative of the divide here.
.

What three way? The players are flat out denied any ability to author fiction in trad games. All they can do is react to whatever the dm authors. They cannot deal with that civil war if the dm doesn’t add a civil war to the game. They cannot as players create anything.

The conflation of authoring fiction and agency during play is a better description of the divide. Players reacting to the dm rolling up the plot wagon is not player authoring anything.

And when every plot can only come from the dm who decides how the world “changes” based on whatever the dm feels is appropriate, the illusion of a living world is just that. An illusion. It’s the players participating in the dms fiction.

That’s how trad play works. Dm sets a variety of scenarios, the players choose between those provided choices, play advances and the dm then presents a new slate of scenarios.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. It works. Hell, I play this way too.

I just don’t see why it can’t coexist with other options as well.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Wow. And I get accused of one true waying?

“Everyone should play the way I want and if you don’t like it, play another game”

I’m thought you were all about accepting different playstyles?

"Everyone should play the way I want"? Lol. Play whatever you want at your own table, I don't care. There's no reason to force (more) non-trad rules into D&D. Advice? Sure, ok. But the game isn't really built for that kind of play, and making it so that it is makes it a different game. I don't see that as one true way, but you're welcome to disagree.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

I am talking - as I have been - about who establishes the shared fiction. This is the core of RPG play.

It matters who and how is deciding what is established into the shared fiction. GM running a prewritten module is not deciding that a lot of time, they're merely relaying what the book says. It is not about who says it, it is about who decides it!

As I posted somewhere, maybe upthread in this thread, and I'm pretty sure in reply to you, a player who names their Dwarven PC "Gimli" is obviously not being original, but that is still them making something part of the shared fiction.

And thankfully not something that I've seen an adult player to do. And still not analogous to a GM running a module except perhaps in a sense that GM might be the one who decides which module to run (but not always, it is not uncommon for players to ask the GM to run a specific module to them.) It would be analogous if the Gimli player was handed a prewritten character (or chose one among a bunch of them) and it came with a prewritten background, personality and specific instructions to how to play the character in most situations that will come up during the adventure.

The overall premise or tone may be.

Which is huge. And BTW not something one can do in a lot of Story Now games, as they come with their own tightly defined premise.

But in the example, straight away play turns back into GM-authorship: the players have to learn what the GM has authored about the factions, learn how the GM thinks the factions might be swayed or tricked, satisfy the GM that such swaying or tricking has been done, etc.

Players establish their goal. The GM provides adversity. That's their job. What you want, the players to establish both the goal and the adversity?

 

[Micah Sweet]

What three way? The players are flat out denied any ability to author fiction in trad games. All they can do is react to whatever the dm authors. They cannot deal with that civil war if the dm doesn’t add a civil war to the game. They cannot as players create anything.

The conflation of authoring fiction and agency during play is a better description of the divide. Players reacting to the dm rolling up the plot wagon is not player authoring anything.

And when every plot can only come from the dm who decides how the world “changes” based on whatever the dm feels is appropriate, the illusion of a living world is just that. An illusion. It’s the players participating in the dms fiction.

That’s how trad play works. Dm sets a variety of scenarios, the players choose between those provided choices, play advances and the dm then presents a new slate of scenarios.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. It works. Hell, I play this way too.

I just don’t see why it can’t coexist with other options as well.

You think PCs can't start a civil war? Quite, quite wrong.

 

[Micah Sweet]

What three way? The players are flat out denied any ability to author fiction in trad games. All they can do is react to whatever the dm authors. They cannot deal with that civil war if the dm doesn’t add a civil war to the game. They cannot as players create anything.

The conflation of authoring fiction and agency during play is a better description of the divide. Players reacting to the dm rolling up the plot wagon is not player authoring anything.

And when every plot can only come from the dm who decides how the world “changes” based on whatever the dm feels is appropriate, the illusion of a living world is just that. An illusion. It’s the players participating in the dms fiction.

That’s how trad play works. Dm sets a variety of scenarios, the players choose between those provided choices, play advances and the dm then presents a new slate of scenarios.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with that. It works. Hell, I play this way too.

I just don’t see why it can’t coexist with other options as well.

In exactly what form do you expect or want these things to co-exist (presumably in some form of text, as I assume if you weren't interested in expanding your preferences into the wider community you wouldn't be advocating so hard)?

 

[Micah Sweet]

It matters who and how is deciding what is established into the shared fiction. GM running a prewritten module is not deciding that a lot of time, they're merely relaying what the book says. It is not about who says it, it is about who decides it!


And thankfully not something that I've seen an adult player to do. And still not analogous to a GM running a module except perhaps in a sense that GM might be the one who decides which module to run (but not always, it is not uncommon for players to ask the GM to run a specific module to them.) It would be analogous if the Gimli player was handed a prewritten character (or chose one among a bunch of them) and it came with a prewritten background, personality and specific instructions to how to play the character in most situations that will come up during the adventure.


Which is huge. And BTW not something one can do in a lot of Story Now games, as they come with their own tightly defined premise.


Players establish their goal. The GM provides adversity. That's their job. What you want, the players to establish both the goal and the adversity?

"Just frame the scenes for us, Mr. GM. Keeping framing those scenes. We've got everything else".

 

[Hussar]

You think PCs can't start a civil war? Quite, quite wrong.

That's ... not what the example was. The PC's kill the emperor and the DM decides that a civil war occurs. I'm just using the example given. You are free to change the example if you wish.

The chain of events - PC's kill emperor -> civil war begins is 100% DM authored. The players have no input here at all. Now, again, that's perfectly fine. It's very a very trad way of playing. But, the whole "living world" thing is just a veil put over the fact that the world is just whatever the DM decides that it is. And those decisions are based on game play - what would be interesting to play out. The emperor is killed, and everyone is happy and they institute a peaceful transition of power doesn't really make for a compelling game.

I'm just pointing out that the whole "well, I run a LIVING world" thing is an illusion. It doesn't exist.

 

[Hussar]

"Everyone should play the way I want"? Lol. Play whatever you want at your own table, I don't care. There's no reason to force (more) non-trad rules into D&D. Advice? Sure, ok. But the game isn't really built for that kind of play, and making it so that it is makes it a different game. I don't see that as one true way, but you're welcome to disagree.

Of course the game wasn't built on non-trad play. Non-trad play didn't exist before trad play. That's why it's trad play...

The notion that the game must ever be frozen in amber and can learn nothing is what I'm objecting to. Even the suggestion of adding in non-trad elements alongside trad-play is treated as making D&D "a different game".

 

[Maxperson]

It's not semantics, though. See the following posts where I'm told I don't care about a living breathing world. Where it's treated as a method rather than a goal... a verb rather than a noun.

Here you see how the term is coopted to fit a style... which then implies that other styles are not concerned with portraying a setting that seems lived in and real in the same manner.

Nothing is coopted to fit anything. Living, breathing world is a playstyle that involves the world moving independently of the PCs. If you are not doing that, you are not playing that playstyle. There's nothing wrong with my saying that, and there's nothing wrong with you not liking that style. That is NOT to say that you can't run a game that feels realistic to your players in a different way, it's just not going to be the above playstyle. The bolded portion is incorrect.

Complaining about it being coopted is like my saying that you coopted the narrative style and that I should be able to apply the term to my games even if I'm not engaging in narrative play.