Is "GM Agency" A Thing?

[Alzrius]

I would argue a big reason this brain worm is still around in TTRPGs (its all disappeared in other kinds of tabletop and especially in video games) is because TTRPGs are historically terrible at teaching themselves to players.

I think this truism is manifested most commonly in the oft-repeated idea that in an RPG, you can be/do anything. No, you can't; the entire point of having rules is to delineate what you can't be and/or do.

 

[Emberashh]

I think this truism is manifested most commonly in the oft-repeated idea that in an RPG, you can be/do anything. No, you can't; the entire point of having rules is to delineate what you can't be and/or do.

Id push back against that myself; I think theres a recurring theme of these games denying too many possibilities to players when they shouldn't be, particularly when it comes to emergent gameplay.

Things like the Peasant Cannon are obviously undesirable, and fixed relatively easily, but theres a lot of things that emerge in the same way the Peasant Cannon did that should be readily allowed to occur, even if theres no rules for them.

This requires prepping GMs to be able to respond to these emergences and lean into them.

In video games, these kinds of things actually tend to express as literal bugs, and in the best of circumstances they get turned into features rather than patched out. For example, Rocket jumping in older arena style FPS games, where you can leverage the ability of a rocket explosion to propel yourself if you time a jump and aim right.

Not intended, but it does make for a fun time and opens up a lot of ways to play that wouldn't be there if the developers didn't lean into them (or at minimum merely permitted them).

In TTRPGs, with a far wider possibility space for interactions (that only gets wider the more robust the system is), GMs need to be able to handle these emergences and know when its truly appropriate to allow for them to play out, and indeed, become a reliable emergent feature the players can count on.

The Peasant cannon for example would only really be fine only in the most Gonzo of games; in most others itd be wise to deny it, on the basis of what I might call the Smart-Ass rule: Don't be one.

But even in DND, by the rules, the Cannon is a lot of work just to get 1d4 bludgeoning damage.

But, the Peasant Cannon is also an example of a design level problem with how the turn system was structured; while emergent, it was predictable as its existence is directly predicated on a very simple interaction between two game mechanics, Ready Action and the Turn mechanics.

Its easily fixed by simply putting in a byline that states a maximum for how many Actions can occur simultaneously, relative to the amount of entities in a given playspace, and what occurs when this limit is exceeded.

Ie, lining up 1000 peasants to do this is going to mean when the Actions trigger, its going to take the full amount of time each of those actions would have taken.

(its also fixed by recognizing the game isn't modeling real physics and the rules physics don't confer any speed to that rock when it passes from one person to another, nor does it provide any damage increase for such speeds)

 

[pemerton]

If the players want to drive play, it is incumbent on them to set goals and stakes IN CHARACTER.

Why?

In 1988 or thereabouts I GMed an AD&D campaign where the players set goals and stakes by building their Duergar Fighter/Thief and Svirfneblin Illusionist/Thief, and then making it clear in play (by their action declarations, and by the evident signs of what interested and excited them) that they wanted to play a thiefly hijinks game.

In 1990 I GMed my first Rolemaster campaign. One of the players made it clear that something he wanted to be part of play was personal mystery and deceit and the like, by (i) specifying that his mentor, who lived in a great hollow oak tree outside the village of Five Oaks, was hiding from his enemies in Nyrond, and (ii) building a mystic PC, which for those who don't know RM is a type of shapechanger/illusionist-y magic-user.

I don't think the approaches I've just described were super-radical back then. They're certainly not radical 35 years later!

 

[Reynard]

I think that when a GM makes a good faith effort to provide logical, consistent, coherent and/or interesting responses to player choices and resultant die rolls, it is uncharitable to accuse them of denying player agency or input "into the story." I understand that the GM centric setting of situations and stakes is not necessarily everyone's preference, but in the context of a traditional RPG is is a reasonable assumption to make.

 

[Maxperson]

I would point out that suggesting a new play style is in no way saying that you don't like a given style. Criticizing a given style also in no way means that you don't like that style. It would be really helpful if people would stop conflating examination and criticism for promoting a preference.

Okay. That's fair.

The term is being coopted. It absolutely is. Becuase the "world moving independently of the PC's" ignores the fact that the person doing the moving - the DM - has a set agenda - creating interesting scenarios for the players to play.

This is not a fact, though. A lot of DMs present a sandbox and let the players explore. There's no set agenda there. Other DMs will create adventures AND also have the world move in ways that make sense outside of that, and there's no set agenda there, either.

The notion of "world simulator" is just an illusion laid over this fact to try to pretend that it's something that it isn't. You prefer the DM to author nearly all the elements of a campaign. And that's fine. That works. And there are a lot of advantages to doing it that way. But, burying the lede and pretending that it's not the DM authoring the vast majority of the game is intellectually dishonest.

The DM having the world move independently of the players is of course going to be authored by him. It literally can't reasonably be otherwise. That doesn't make it an illusion or not a world simulator. These are not mutually exclusive positions, so there's no dishonesty or pretending going on. At least not inherent in the playstyle.

And, just to point out, this whole "DMing the world" thing gets brought up every single time the idea of players having any authority in the game. "The DM does all the work, so, whatever the DM says, goes. If you don't like it, there's the door." Suggesting a system where authority is shared more evenly is rejected, not because it's a bad idea necessarily, but because DM's refuse to give up that level of authority in the game. But, they can't outright say that. So, it gets wrapped up in this whole "DMing the world" canard.

Now it's you who is conflating things. The first part has nothing to do with the second part. The DM doing all the work doesn't equate to doing what the DM says goes or leave the game, and none of that means that the DM cannot create a living, breathing world.

I'll also note a few things.

First, many, if not most DMs do not have the "My way or the highway mentality" and will work with players within reason. The DM has to have fun, too, so the game can't change too drastically or the DM won't have fun and you won't have that person DM.

Second, a lot of players don't want more authority. I've tried several different ways over multiple campaigns to get my players more invested in having more control over the game. They pretty much refused to use it so I've given up on it at this point. That's not to say that they are not opinionated about how the game should be run. They just want me to do the running.

A lot of DMs do share some degree of authority with their players.

 

[pemerton]

I don't consider players acting solely as their PCs to be "inconsequential" "minimal" or "not directly pivotal". You clearly do. This is why we're at an impasse.

I wish you would stop imputing views to me that I do not hold. From the same thread that I believe you participated in, from the same post that I re-posted just upthread in this one:

in order to pre-empt, or at least attempt to pre-empt, confused or incorrect statements about how (say) Dungeon World works: in the RPGs I know that have higher player agency, the players cannot "alter game reality" in the way some posters in this thread are talking about. Rather, they establish their own goals and aspirations for their PCs (including working with the group collectively to establish the appropriate backstory and setting elements to underpin those goals and aspirations), and then the GM relies on those goals and aspirations as cues for their own narration of framing and consequence.

It's not mysterious. Vincent Baker wrote a whole rulebook about it (Apocalypse World). You can download, for free, Luke Crane's rulebook about it (Burning Wheel Gold Hub and Spokes)

There can be very high player agency in a game in which the players' moves consist of declaring actions for their PCs. What I described as inconsequential, minor and not directly pivotal is excctly that - in the post in question, I contrast such things with "significant elements of framing, consequence etc". And you'll note that those words were quoted from other posters, including you:

Not too far upthread @Oofta referred to "inconsequential" details as not generating the concern. Similarly, @Micah Sweet referred to "minor" things, and @FrogReaver referred to things that are not "directly pivotal".

sometimes I will accept player input on minor stuff during play if what they're asking for makes sense to me in the context of where they are

In high agency play, player input is accepted in respect of more than merely minor stuff.

 

[pemerton]

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

<snip>

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?

(1) What is the tightly defined premise of Burning Wheel? Or even Apocalypse World?

(2) So I sit down at @Micah Sweet's table, or your table, and my goal is to liberate my ancestral homeland of Auxol, drawing in part on my status as the last knight of the Iron Tower. How does that fit with GM ownership of the setting?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Mod Note:

A couple people have been reported for making things personal as opposed to just addressing the contents of the posts. I came in here to check it out.

Lo and behold! It’s more than just those two.

So, please, for the sake of civil discourse, let’s dial back the jabs at each other and stick to discussing posts’ content. If someone’s really getting under your skin, perhaps it’s time to disengage or even put someone on your ignore list.

 

[pemerton]

I think that when a GM makes a good faith effort to provide logical, consistent, coherent and/or interesting responses to player choices and resultant die rolls, it is uncharitable to accuse them of denying player agency or input "into the story."

Why?

The issue of who is establishing the shared fiction is a matter of fact, not a matter of charitable perspective.

I understand that the GM centric setting of situations and stakes is not necessarily everyone's preference, but in the context of a traditional RPG is is a reasonable assumption to make.

I would paraphrase this as: there is an established tradition, in RPGing, of low player agency play. It seems to have become prevalent in the mid-80s, although Lewis Pulsipher was criticising it before then (as far back as the late 70s).

In classic dungeon-crawling play, the GM establishes the setting but - at least if Gygax's advice in his PHB is being followed - it is the players who choose the situations and the stakes (within the parameters of the GM's dungeon), by first exploring, and then setting goals for subsequent expeditions. The idea that all framing, stakes and consequences are determined by the GM is a departure from what Gygax sets out in his PHB, though there are hints of it a year later in his DMG.

The same shift can be seen in the difference between text in the 1977 Traveller rulebooks and later, early 80s, editions.

This shift is also a matter of fact, and not just of charitable or uncharitable perspective. I don't think it should be forbidden to talk about it!

 

[pemerton]

A lot of DMs present a sandbox and let the players explore.

If the situation changes when the players explore it - which is pretty much the core of the "living, breathing world" - then the players lose their agency.

A core feature of the map-and-keyed dungeon, which makes it amenable to game play, is that it is relatively static. So you an scout, make plans, retreat, change your spell and gear loadout, and then come back and undertake your raid. This is the approach to play that Gygax sets out in his PHB, but that he then starts to undercut with his advice to GMs in his DMG.