Is "GM Agency" A Thing?

[Lanefan]

While this could absolutely be part of it, the "Man With No Name" thing ...

I been through the dungeon as a man with no name
It felt good to get out of the rain...

 

[Micah Sweet]

I been through the dungeon as a man with no name
It felt good to get out of the rain...

That's America for you.

 

[hawkeyefan]

@hawkeyefan

Any thoughts on this?

Yes, I think it's an accurate assessment. Call of Cthulhu and Delta Green and similar games tend to restrict player agency (to one extent or the other) as part of the play experience. I think there are reasons for this... the mystery being central to play and loss of agency being central to horror are the ones that come most readily to my mind, but there are likely others.

And I think we can likewise restrict or limit a GM's input on a game. I think looking at those kinds of limits or restrictions can shed light on what a game is trying to do, and why... but I don't know if it helps to think of that as "GM agency". I like @aramis erak 's mention of goals for NPCs and that the GM likely has such, and I agree... but I don't expect a GM to place them above those of the players. In opposition to the players' yes, but above? That the GM should actively seek those goals above others?

I mean, if it's a battle of agency, the GM is going to win, right? Even in highly player-facing games, things are generally stacked in the GM's favor in this regard.

Thats how it seems to me.

 

[Hussar]

While this could absolutely be part of it, the "Man With No Name" thing also has another cause; when a player does create background, and the GM uses it as a lever against them. Doesn't take much of that before someone never does it again.

Oh absolutely.

Which, really, is another point in favour of stronger guidance for collaborative world building.

 

[Hussar]

snip
When I think of collaborative world-building I see everyone having a hand in everything, sitting around a table and actually, well, collaborating. We're going to do this district now, and each participant chucks in their ideas for that district which then get hammered out (hopefully without too much argument) into something viable. Repeat for the next district, and so on.
Snip.

I guess you could do that. I have no idea why you would do that. That seems like far, far more works for no benefit. And certainly I was pretty clear right from the start with the examples I gave that this wasn’t what I meant.

Kinda goes back to @Umbran’s point about assumptions.

 

[pemerton]

See, unless an NPC's goals directly demand the PCs' involvement, i see no reason why their plans wouldn't advance independent of the PCs presence. That makes zero sense to me.

I'm not @aramis erak, but when they post that "I often set short term goals for NPCs, but only advance them when PCs are in view of them" I assume that they are talking about how they establish the shared fiction, not the content of the shared fiction.

No doubt the (imaginary) NPCs are doing (imaginary) things here, there and everywhere to try and advance their goals - but (for whatever imaginary reasons) the moments of crunch for their goals occur when the PCs are present. In terms of the approach to play, I interpreted aramis erak as to adopting an approach in the same general ballpark as I had in mind when, over a decade ago, I posted that I

prefer that failure should (at least almost) always be on stage.

**************

I like @aramis erak 's mention of goals for NPCs and that the GM likely has such, and I agree... but I don't expect a GM to place them above those of the players. In opposition to the players' yes, but above? That the GM should actively seek those goals above others?

An interesting manifestation of this point, or something in its neighbourhood, is the following:

In Burning Wheel and Torchbearer, Beliefs, Traits and Instincts on the PC sheet are for the player to lean into, or clash with, or otherwise play as they see fit given their feel for their PC, the situation the GM is presenting, and their desire to earn fate and persona awards.

In the same games, those elements on a NPC sheet are guidelines for the GM in declaring actions for the NPC. If the players learn those elements (eg a PC reads the NPC's aura) then the players have an advantage in opposing the NPC, because they have a sense of how the NPC will act. It would be cheat-y GMing to declare actions in disregard of those elements on the NPC sheet.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I'm not @aramis erak, but when they post that "I often set short term goals for NPCs, but only advance them when PCs are in view of them" I assume that they are talking about how they establish the shared fiction, not the content of the shared fiction.

No doubt the (imaginary) NPCs are doing (imaginary) things here, there and everywhere to try and advance their goals - but (for whatever imaginary reasons) the moments of crunch for their goals occur when the PCs are present. In terms of the approach to play, I interpreted aramis erak as to adopting an approach in the same general ballpark as I had in mind when, over a decade ago, I posted that I


**************

An interesting manifestation of this point, or something in its neighbourhood, is the following:

In Burning Wheel and Torchbearer, Beliefs, Traits and Instincts on the PC sheet are for the player to lean into, or clash with, or otherwise play as they see fit given their feel for their PC, the situation the GM is presenting, and their desire to earn fate and persona awards.

In the same games, those elements on a NPC sheet are guidelines for the GM in declaring actions for the NPC. If the players learn those elements (eg a PC reads the NPC's aura) then the players have an advantage in opposing the NPC, because they have a sense of how the NPC will act. It would be cheat-y GMing to declare actions in disregard of those elements on the NPC sheet.

Ok, let me re-phrase. I understand that point of view, but find the entire concept anathema to my enjoyment of the game, and the imaginary world I or my DM creates for the players to explore via their PCs. I don't want reality to twist to accommodate maximum drama.

 

[Hussar]

The notion that npcs “work” towards goals of foreign to me. When not on camera, npcs succeed or fail entirely at my whim. If I decide that the castle burned down in the night, that’s what happened. Npcs have no existence outside of whatever I happen to imagine.

On screen, then the rules change. But off screen? Who cares? The cultists continue on their road to whatever they are trying to do. No one ever actually rolls out a battle where no players are present, the odd exception being an exception of course and please, if you want to say, “well I one time rolled out an npc fight with no players”, I congratulate you on your technical correctness but point out that that’s not really the point.

 

[pemerton]

I don't want reality to twist to accommodate maximum drama.

I don't know what you mean by "reality" here. What you seem to be saying is that you prefer to have the GM decide the important fictional outcomes, at least sometimes, rather than make it something at stake for the players to engage with via the game's action resolution mechanics.

 

[aramis erak]

Ok, let me re-phrase. I understand that point of view, but find the entire concept anathema to my enjoyment of the game, and the imaginary world I or my DM creates for the players to explore via their PCs. I don't want reality to twist to accommodate maximum drama.

Whereas my RPG play is strongly informed by 45 years worth of consumption of visual fiction... and audio fiction... where the villains activities may be of need for some otherwise apparently narrative pops, but are actually behind the scenes character actions.

The GM exists to provide challenges, and context for them, and to adjudicate the interactions with those challenges.