Is "GM Agency" A Thing?

[Crimson Longinus]

You’re right. But I think the way to possibly change that is to point it out. To discuss things openly and clearly in an attempt to get rid of the vaguely worded mysticism that tends to dominate these discussions.

I really don't know what you mean by this or what it is that you don't get. None of this is really that complicated and as far as I can see no one is trying to obfuscate things.

 

[hawkeyefan]

That's like saying that "sales techniques" isn't helpful, because there are a variety of techniques used to sell things. Having multiple techniques to creating a living, breathing world categorized under "living, breathing world" is just as helpful.

Helpful how? As a category? Sure. But what about if we want to talk about how to go about it?

- “I want to know how to be a better salesman.”

- “Use sales techniques!”

That’s useless.

No. That's completely wrong. If the necromancer goes on to help the poor starving kids or enslave another town, the PCs never have to go engage at all. Nothing is being forced on them. If the artificer creates a gift to give the PCs the next time they are in town in thanks for rescuing his daughter, they don't have to accept. Nothing is being forced on them.

It depends. Why do these things keep coming up? If players don’t engage with something, does it make sense to keep bringing it up?

Given that the GM has significant influence over all the elements of the fiction, they’re likely to be able to shape events such that the outcome of anything is exactly what they want it to be. As such, they’re often invested in these elements… they’ve sunk prep time and thought into these things, they’re less likely to just accept “this necromancer guy just is never heard from again”.

I don’t think that makes the world feel any more or less living and breathing. It’s just as likely to make things feel like certain elements are going to just keep coming up.

If the DM is forcing anything on the players, it has nothing at all to do with a "living, breathing world" and everything to do with bad DMs railroading.

No, it very much depends. If the DM is the one deciding the starting situation, the relevant factors, and the outcome of any player actions (or inaction) then wouldn’t you say railroading is much more likely?

 

[hawkeyefan]

Because if you roll on a chart, it's easier for the players to accept that the GM isn't intentionally screwing them over if they get a bad result.

So a chart or table is less biased? Or at the very least, can be perceived as such?

Doesn’t that seem significant?

How are either of those GM stories? They're adventure hooks representing the current state of the situation about which they are concerned. If the players bite, you play that out together. If they don't, something else happens that doesn't involve the PCs (because they chose not to involve themselves).

How are they not? The GM has come up with the situation, the parties involved, all the other relevant factors, and then the outcome of any actions taken or not by the players.

The other way to handle it is to have literally nothing happen unless the PCs are involved, which feels far less alive to me than having the GM use some method to generate what happened while they were gone.

But that’s not what’s happening in play. We’re simply unconcerned about the bulk of what’s happening beyond the PCs until it’s relevant. There’s no need to determine all the things that are happening beyond the PCs. We can wait to see how the game goes, and then determine events when they’re needed.

 

[hawkeyefan]

So I don't think it necessarily hugely matters when the thing is determined as long as it is. That being said, I feel keeping this roughly in real time might have potential to generate more living world.

What if it never comes up again? Why determine it ahead of time? What if you determine what happens with the thieves guild and then the players don’t go back to that city for many months? Is the thieves’ guild still in control? Or has something else happened? Why not just wait until it’s relevant and then introduce it? Then, you’ll have more information on which to make your decisions or make the determinations.

Why commit before you need to?

Locations in campaign worlds are rarely completely isolated, and what happens in one affects neighbouring areas, people and news travel etc.

Says who?

I really don't know what you mean by this or what it is that you don't get. None of this is really that complicated and as far as I can see no one is trying to obfuscate things.

Oh well. I’ve been pretty clear. “Living breathing world” and similar phrases are obfuscatory by nature. Seems obvious to me. If you disagree, that’s fine… but maybe say something more than a shrug emoji?

Or don’t!

 

[Micah Sweet]

You’re right. But I think the way to possibly change that is to point it out. To discuss things openly and clearly in an attempt to get rid of the vaguely worded mysticism that tends to dominate these discussions.



Immersion is different for many people. If I’m a player in a game and decide to have my character leave a city, and everywhere I go, I keep hearing about what’s going on in that city, there’s a good chance it has the opposite effect… that I’ll feel like I’m being chased by the GM’s plot. Which doesn’t evoke a “living breathing world”.

Obviously this may not always be the case. It depends on many factors. But I don’t think that we can chalk all this stuff up to immersion.

Is that how it is, though, or are you perhaps exaggerating? "Everywhere I go, I keep hearing about what's going on in that city"? You really think that's how we do it?

That straw man don't stand up.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Is that how it is, though, or are you perhaps exaggerating? "Everywhere I go, I keep hearing about what's going on in that city"? You really think that's how we do it?

That straw man don't stand up.

That’s literally what people mentioned. Perhaps better examples are in order?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Helpful how? As a category? Sure. But what about if we want to talk about how to go about it?

- “I want to know how to be a better salesman.”

- “Use sales techniques!”

That’s useless.




It depends. Why do these things keep coming up? If players don’t engage with something, does it make sense to keep bringing it up?

Given that the GM has significant influence over all the elements of the fiction, they’re likely to be able to shape events such that the outcome of anything is exactly what they want it to be. As such, they’re often invested in these elements… they’ve sunk prep time and thought into these things, they’re less likely to just accept “this necromancer guy just is never heard from again”.

I don’t think that makes the world feel any more or less living and breathing. It’s just as likely to make things feel like certain elements are going to just keep coming up.



No, it very much depends. If the DM is the one deciding the starting situation, the relevant factors, and the outcome of any player actions (or inaction) then wouldn’t you say railroading is much more likely?

No. I think people inclined not to like a particular playstyle look for ways to discredit it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

That’s literally what people mentioned. Perhaps better examples are in order?

If you go back there, you hear about it. If it affects where you are, you hear about it. If it's a huge deal and it makes sense to hear about it far and wide (like the death of a monarch) you hear about it more. None of that seems unreasonable to me, and none of it demands the PCs drop everything and engage with the mythical "GM's story", especially if you hear about a lot of things. PCs listen for rumors all the time.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So a chart or table is less biased? Or at the very least, can be perceived as such?

Doesn’t that seem significant?



How are they not? The GM has come up with the situation, the parties involved, all the other relevant factors, and then the outcome of any actions taken or not by the players.




But that’s not what’s happening in play. We’re simply unconcerned about the bulk of what’s happening beyond the PCs until it’s relevant. There’s no need to determine all the things that are happening beyond the PCs. We can wait to see how the game goes, and then determine events when they’re needed.

No need, unless you want that living breathing world you and others insist on denying the existence of.

Again, if you don't want it, say so without trying to deny its relevance to others.

 

[Maxperson]

Helpful how? As a category? Sure. But what about if we want to talk about how to go about it?

- “I want to know how to be a better salesman.”

- “Use sales techniques!”

That’s useless.

But people come here and say what techniques they use to create a living, breathing world. I can't recall a single post in this thread where a living, breathing world proponent said, "Well what you have to do to create a living, breathing world is create a living, breathing world." Instead explanations and/or examples are given.

It depends. Why do these things keep coming up? If players don’t engage with something, does it make sense to keep bringing it up?

Yes it does. If there's a war going on between the countries of Ihateyou and Ihateyoumore, it's likely to last a while and news of it be widespread. When the party goes into a bar to hear rumors, they are likely to hear rumors of it for a long time, even if they don't engage. It's part of what makes the world seem more real.

Whether it's good, bad or indifferent will depend on your group. If you and your group aren't into the living, breathing world playstyle, don't use it.

Given that the GM has significant influence over all the elements of the fiction, they’re likely to be able to shape events such that the outcome of anything is exactly what they want it to be.

But why would they? The DM of the living, breathing world playstyle is far more likely to try and figure out the logical conclusion or very often multiple possibilities and determine them randomly. Often they will assign percentages. The necromancer has a 60% chance to try and enslave the next village, a 25% chance to lay low for a few years in a nearby graveyard, a 10% chance to try and hunt down the PCs and a 5% chance to turn his life around and try and help people. Then a percentile die roll will be had and we see what happens.

There are a bunch of different ways to figure out how the world is going to proceed, and "I want it to be that way." is rarely going to be used, and when it is, it will almost always be because the option picked is overwhelmingly the obvious one for the NPC based on what is known about that NPC.

As such, they’re often invested in these elements… they’ve sunk prep time and thought into these things, they’re less likely to just accept “this necromancer guy just is never heard from again”.

A DM who is that invested in what he creates shouldn't be a DM. They're the kind that make a DMPC and ruin games. They're also pretty rare. Thankfully, most DMs are okay with the necromancer going the way of the dodo and disappearing. They've got infinite NPCs and don't need to keep one around when it doesn't make sense to.

I don’t think that makes the world feel any more or less living and breathing. It’s just as likely to make things feel like certain elements are going to just keep coming up.

It depends on the thing that is coming up. The war news will travel to the PCs. The necromancer won't unless the DM rolled "hunt down the PCs." He's going to be local to where he was and if the PCs never go back, they aren't going to hear about him.

No, it very much depends. If the DM is the one deciding the starting situation, the relevant factors, and the outcome of any player actions (or inaction) then wouldn’t you say railroading is much more likely?

No. Railroading comes from the personality of the DM, not the game played. Such a DM is as likely to railroad in D&D as any other RPG, and is also the type of person who demands the group play the board games he wants to play the way he wants to play them. It's not about the game. It's about the person.