Is "GM Agency" A Thing?

[Thomas Shey]

I more or less agree with Umbran above here; in a more traditional style game, if anything the GM has rather more agency than I think necessary, or, in many cases, desirable.

 

[bloodtide]

In nearly any game with a GM the GM has full, absolute power to do anything. One thing, and one thing only can limit a GMs power: The GM themselves. That is to say they can willingly give up some, most or all of their power.

Even the games that restrict the GMs power a bit don't do much. Really they can't as the GM still has total control over the game. That is what it means to be the GM.

All he restrictive games have only vague rules like GM must do what is "reasonable" or can only act if they are "triggered". But such a rule has no real effect on the GMs power as they are the ones deciding everything. And even if the game has hostile players watching the GMs every move ready to pounce.....all the GM needs to do is convince the players, toss out some illusionist or just out right fool the players. As long as the players "think" the GM is following the rules or follwoing the 'game agreement' then everything is fine and the GM can get away with anything.

But once you get to the games where the GM is made into just another player....well, then they are not a GM anymore.

But a GMs power is not exactly "agency".

For example - in d&d a DM doesn’t have the agency to make all weapons do 1d20 damage. And while the d&d DM can technically railroad and still follow the rules - the social contract generally reduces the agency to do that as well.

Well, for example though, a DM can do that.

On a whim a DM can say "dream metal weapons do 1d20 damage" and can even say "the orcs that attack your PCs all have dream metal weapons".

And a DM can even make a house rule "all weapons do 1d20 damage", no different then any other house rule.

And the DM does not have to follow the "social contract"....if fact, the DM does not even have to agree to the idea of a social contract.

 

[Umbran]

And the DM does not have to follow the "social contract"....if fact, the DM does not even have to agree to the idea of a social contract.

Every gathering of humans has "social contract", though it is often unstated. We do not interact without some expectations of etiquette - and those are effectively a default social contract.

 

[FrogReaver]

And a DM can even make a house rule "all weapons do 1d20 damage", no different then any other house rule.

And the DM does not have to follow the "social contract"....if fact, the DM does not even have to agree to the idea of a social contract.

Everyone has to follow the social contract. The players can just as easily ask the dm not to come back as the dm can to the players.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Everyone has to follow the social contract.

Everyone?

 

[FrogReaver]

Everyone?

Well…

Just be advised that not doing so will entail consequences

 

[bloodtide]

Every gathering of humans has "social contract", though it is often unstated. We do not interact without some expectations of etiquette - and those are effectively a default social contract.

I mean if you want to be all vague sure.

For RPGs though the social contract is way more a set thing....often spelled out in writing. And it's very nearly always the DM wrting it up and giving it to the players. And sure the players can add to it...if the DM wishes them too

Everyone has to follow the social contract. The players can just as easily ask the dm not to come back as the dm can to the players.

I get everyone here might be talking about some different social contract then the traditional social contract idea that has been used in RPGs for 50 years...

But even if your talking about some "new" form a social contract.....the DM can still break or ignore it.

Like you can have a social contract say "the DM shalt not cheat"....but the DM can do it and be impossible to 'catch' doing so.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

Well…

Just be advised that not doing so will entail consequences

I would totally pay to have Larry David discuss player agency with some of our commenters.

 

[Micah Sweet]

This came up in another thread and I want to see what folks think about the idea.

When we talk about "Player agency" (which we do a lot around here) usually we are talking about the ability of the players to make informed decisions that impact the outcome of play.

I am curious is folks think there is such a thing as "GM agency" with a similar definition. More importantly, I am wondering if folks think if there are styles or elements of play that limit "GM agency" in a meaningful way.

For my own part, if we are talking about traditional RPGs (like D&D or GURPS or whatever), I don't think "GM agency" is a meaningful term. It is all "GM agency" because the rules start with the premise that the GM decides on the rules, and all decisions ultimately flow from the GM. While a GM may decide to allow game mechanics, die rolls or player decisions to inform or usurp that decision make, the GM still ultimately has the authority to change any decision. There is no mechanism in traditional RPGs that can limit "GM agency."

There are other kinds of games -- story now, for example -- that I think do define the GM much more as "just another participant" and therefore include rules and mechanisms that inherently limit what options are available to the GM. In these cases, "GM agency" is just a different kind of "player agency" because the GM is just another kind of player. Granted, I am not overly familiar with games of this type and it is totally possible I am misunderstanding the nature of, say, GM moves in Apocalypse World as a mechanism that defines and restricts "GM agency" in a way similar to player moves. I am sure @pemerton and @overgeeked will be along to correct me soon enough.

So, what do you think. Is "GM agency" a meaningful term and worth talking about in a similar context to "player agency"?

Like you said, many games do restrict GM agency. The more narrative focused they are the more restrictive they tend to be, despite many claims from fans of PBtA, Burning Wheel, FATE and similar systems. You may like the restrictions or be in the game for the stuff it does let you do as a GM, but that doesn't mean your agency isn't restricted; it just means you don't care.

It's similar to the player agency restrictions in many classic or trad games, where the player is generally restricted to actions their PC could reasonably take in the world. In such games, my agency is restricted, but I like that way.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I ran a horror game twice this summer that was basically "here's a bunch of spooky ideas -- let's toss them into a haunted house." Both times I ran it, the two different groups of players assembled a whole working thesis for what was going on and why that I never thought of. I naturally ran with the ideas, though, which were really great and accidentally made me look extremely smart.

See, to me that's illusionism, which I generally prefer to avoid, but as long as your players never found out I'm sure it was a positive for you and your group.