Thomas Shey
Legend
Only for the definition of GM agency that requires them to control everything about the setting and everything about the mechanics too.
Is "GM Agency" A Thing?
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
Only for the definition of GM agency that requires them to control everything about the setting and everything about the mechanics too.
Hussar
Legend
I absolutely think it’s taught. When you get new players, particularly younger ones, they will constantly try to author in elements into the game, even in the middle of play.
That kind of behaviour gets beaten out of them pretty quickly by DM’s and advice around gaming where they get told that “it’s the DMs world” or “your dm is responsible for the world” and so on.
The whole “roll up the plot wagon and entertain me” crowd of gamers is imo very much a learned behaviour.
Hussar
Legend
I’ll put this here for evidence of what I’m talking about. Ray Winneger (sp) in Dungeon Magazine, back when it was a print magazine, had a fantastic series about campaign design. Really the gold standard for campaign design. Fantastic stuff. Went on for quite a few years as I recall.
I don’t recall a single article talking about engaging the players in campaign design. Everything comes from the dm.
I’ve got a cool little game that I picked up where the players collaboratively/competitively design a game world. Each player is a god and can do all sorts of things that you would expect gods to do - create lands, peoples, send disasters you name it. At the end of play, you have a complete world with geography, history etc.
Six DND DMG‘s and not a single one even whispers a suggestion of creating a campaign this way. It’s always 100% from the DM to the players who passively lap up whatever the DM is serving.
Even Adventure Paths are designed this way. Why not have collaborative dungeon design where each player builds a part of the dungeon, which the dm then stitched together. As the dm makes changes, the players are awarded a pool of bonus dice to use while exploring the dungeon. Great idea. Takes so much work load off the dm and engages the players to a huge degree.
Not so much as a hint of doing something like that in trad games.
I don’t recall a single article talking about engaging the players in campaign design. Everything comes from the dm.
I’ve got a cool little game that I picked up where the players collaboratively/competitively design a game world. Each player is a god and can do all sorts of things that you would expect gods to do - create lands, peoples, send disasters you name it. At the end of play, you have a complete world with geography, history etc.
Six DND DMG‘s and not a single one even whispers a suggestion of creating a campaign this way. It’s always 100% from the DM to the players who passively lap up whatever the DM is serving.
Even Adventure Paths are designed this way. Why not have collaborative dungeon design where each player builds a part of the dungeon, which the dm then stitched together. As the dm makes changes, the players are awarded a pool of bonus dice to use while exploring the dungeon. Great idea. Takes so much work load off the dm and engages the players to a huge degree.
Not so much as a hint of doing something like that in trad games.
Micah Sweet
Level Up & OSR Enthusiast
That is a different kind of game. As you say, such games exist, so I'm not sure what you're complaining about. If you want to run your campaign this way, you are welcome to do so. Sounds like fun.
What game are you talking about, by the way?
Mod Note:
You’ve been here long enough to know making it personal is not appropriate on ENWorld. Don’t do it again.
For what it's worth, 4e D&D flagged this possibility in its PHB, in its DMG (both in the context of player-authored quests) and then said more, including outside the quest context, in the DMG 2.
]
Back in 1990, when the only RPGing resources I was familiar with were D&D and Rolemaster ones, I took it for granted that players would create elements for their PCs. I suspect I got some of this expectation from the book What is Dungeons & Dragons? (published in 1982) and some from the original OA's approach to PC build, which included families and martial arts masters and the like.
We didn't do anything very radical - but the players talked about their PC ideas, we worked out where they came from on the Greyhawk map, they made up details of their backstories, the magic-using PC made up the details of his mentor who lived in a great hollow oak tree outside of the village, etc.
There is no inherent opposition between a pretty standard approach to D&D, and letting players play this sort of role in setting design.
Of course that's not to say that it couldn't be done!
I don't think it's terribly different at all.
Back in 1990, when the only RPGing resources I was familiar with were D&D and Rolemaster ones, I took it for granted that players would create elements for their PCs. I suspect I got some of this expectation from the book What is Dungeons & Dragons? (published in 1982) and some from the original OA's approach to PC build, which included families and martial arts masters and the like.
We didn't do anything very radical - but the players talked about their PC ideas, we worked out where they came from on the Greyhawk map, they made up details of their backstories, the magic-using PC made up the details of his mentor who lived in a great hollow oak tree outside of the village, etc.
There is no inherent opposition between a pretty standard approach to D&D, and letting players play this sort of role in setting design.
This I think is more radical, as it is not just player authorship of background setting elements but players authoring the core obstacles of the adventure.
Of course that's not to say that it couldn't be done!
This is not my experience.
As to player authored setting elements, it's common for players to establish some of those elements in creating back stories, and the GM incorporating those elements into play, no?
aramis erak
Legend
Often.
Of the last 10 tables I've played at (rather than run), I walked from 4 because of horrible changes to rules...
BTVS - The GM was taking and rolling NPC attacks by adding them to the listed figures - when the rules note that they're figured by replacing a die roll with the NPC always rolling a 6. So, since almost all interactions are as PC stat + skill + difficulty mod + 1d10 vs NPC stat + skill + difficulty mod + 6. (Difficulty mods are generally prefigured for specific combat maneuvers; non-combat, just adjust the player's roll.)
AD&D 2e - GM decided to relocate us to Ravenloft, while out of spells, out of healing potions, and low on hit points. I chose not to go. She made it a mission from god... I was playing a paladin... My response was, "I guess I'm a fighter now." Since I was hosting, and NOT ONE PLAYER was interested in the horror-dungeon... including the GM's boyfriend... campaign ended right then and there. DQ and I have spoken only a couple times since - at funerals and SCA events.
I watched the GM for the third running a session prior - several empty seats... and saw he was making many egregiously bad "Not 5E as advertized" calls. I went and crossed my name off the prereg.
When a Rifts GM isn't even adhering to the basics of Palladium (d20 for combat, d100 for non-combat)... was using 2d10 for the to-hit... and was dividing all PC skills by 5 to get them to 2d10 as well. Walked right off. Session 1.
aramis erak
Legend
One of many prices.
aramis erak
Legend
No, it also applies to less constrained situations. In a pure narrative situation, the only limit is what doesn't break the table's WSoD/Verisimilitude. The most constricted authority is when the game makes no room for a GM at all - such as the storygames Once Upon a Time, Hobbit Tales from the Green Dragon Inn or Aye, Dark Overlord! OUaT doesn't even meet my expectations of an RPG - as the characters are all shared.
The least agency with a GM I've seen is Cosmic Patrol... GMing rotates each scene. The scenes are prewritten. The GM role simply chooses the actions for the NPCs, rolls for the NPCs, and can assign no more than +3 or -3 to the rolls. Oh, and it's a typical d4-d12 step die. Combat rolls are combat die + range mode + GM chosen diff mod vs combat die. Non-combat, 1d12 +1d (relevant stat) + GM chosen mod vs 1d20.
The GM role also changes at end of scene, and the adventure sets - in plain sight - the goal for ending the scene... It's very much a "play to find out how" not a "play to find out if" type game.
The most with an actual system I've seen is Risus.
I'm not sure I've been in a game in the past 30 years where back story hasn't also been accepted between sessions. And players could regularly ask if they could find something in town or in the dungeon (particular shop, particular thing one might find in a dungeon) that the DM hadn't already thought of putting there.
Yora
Legend
GM agency does not have to be traded for. Nor can you lose it or give it up. It automatically exists.
clearstream
(He, Him)
Don't worry dear, they can't help it?
Hussar
Legend
Couple of things. First off, you're missing the point. The discussion is about whether or not the players not engaging in the game is the result of being discouraged from adding things to the game or not. I do strongly believe that trad games have discouraged players from engaging beyond simply reacting to what the DM is putting in front of them. There is very little DMing advice in making players also responsible for how the game works.
As to the game, it's called Dawn of Worlds: http://www.clanwebsite.org/games/rpg/Dawn_of_Worlds_game_1_0Final.pdf Tons of fun.
But, that's the thing. If the player says, "Can there be a "particular thing" in a dungeon, that's Player Wishlists and that's WAYYY verboten. The hue and cry over the notion of players being able to influence the game world like that was very, very loud.
And, sure. The player could "ask" if there's something or other in the town. But, the DM certainly doesn't have to say yes. It's still 100% in the hands of the DM. At no point can I turn to the DM and declare that I'm going to go visit my sister that lives in this town off the cuff without first getting the DM's okay.
And, again, frankly, that's what's virtually killed any chance of players actually stepping up most of the time. So, the players, as @Reynard says, are barely engaged in the setting at all.
I didn't say that. I was talking about the work involved in running the game. that might include setting development, but isn't limited to it. I think most players that choose to be "forever players" prefer to be entertained in a mostly passive capacity. I think many of them like railroads (or rollercoasters, as I often put it) and I think too much choice and/or responsibilities turns them off. Anyone who has ever seen the concerned and blank looks when you drop players in a sandbox and ask "What do you do?" knows what I mean.
As to the specific issue of setting creation: even in the Book No One Reads, by page 6 the DM is advised to use player background inform to inform the world and let the players define elements of play.
Hussar
Legend
But that's my point. The DM is advised. At no point in the DMG (any DMG really) is the notion that maybe we could actually let the players take an active hand in campaign design. It's still 100% (or 99% anyway) from the DM. And, again, IMO, the reason that you get these "forever players" who are very passive is because they've had any inkling of being active beaten out of them very quickly.
And, yes, I totally agree about sandboxes. It's exactly what I'm talking about. The players are taught that everything must come from the DM. If the DM then turns to the players and says, "Well, what do you want to do?" then the players really don't know how to respond. Everything they've been taught since opening the PHB (if you want this, ASK YOUR DM!) is that everything flows in one direction - from the DM to the players.
Which, again, IMO, has been a mistake all the way along. This idea that we're sitting down to play in the DM's setting/campaign. It should never have been that. It should be "let's build this thing together as a group, THEN play".
Take something like The Dirty Dungeon which I alluded to above. Each player makes 5 encounters. A small section of a dungeon with 5 encounters - they don't have to be combat. They are just 5 events. The DM then collects that material, stitches it together, and every time the DM makes a change to what he's been given, you add a d4 to the pot. The players can use those d4's any time they want as a bonus to a roll while exploring the adventure.
I've got 5 players That would be a 25 encounter adventure - that's a seriously meaty adventure. Which you could bang out in an hour or two since all the work is already done for you.
Why is THAT sort of thing not being included in advice? That's how we get around the "forever players" who just passively wait for the plot wagon to show up. Teach the players to work together as a group to build the campaign instead of 5 complete strangers who have zero connection to each other or the campaign and are only adventuring together because they have a "PC" halo hanging over their heads.
We all talk about things like DM burnout or the workload of DMing, but, there's never any actual effort to do anything about it.
aramis erak
Legend
Only if one accepts that there are no rules, only guidelines.
A stance I categorically reject as amongst the worst things ever penned in the industry¹.
Rules are rules.
When I make a change, I make certain my players know about it. And usually get their approval for it.
Lack of informed consent is lack of any consent. I never consent to not using the agreed upon rules. Key element - agreed upon.
¹: not The Worst, because David Nilson gets that for the toxic as hell introduction in Traveller TNE's Hiver & Ithklur introduction, where he basically makes a personal attack on much of Traveller's fanbase...
There are lots of rules about how we behave with each other that are not codified into law.
Ever hear the term "etiquette"?
Fat lot of good that'll do them before they can read.
