Is "GM Agency" A Thing?

[Hussar]

What?

Every time my character opens its mouth and says something (i.e. every time I-as-player speak in character) I'm authoring fiction. Every time my character - or the party as a whole - tries an action, I'm authoring fiction. Every time my character goes anywhere in the setting, I'm authoring fiction; maybe not about the setting itself but certainly about where my character is and what it's doing while there.

If they want to deal with a civil war and the DM doesn't give them one, they can always go out and try to incite one. Flip side: if the DM gives them a civil war they can always decide to ignore it.

But at no point can they add a civil war to the game without going through the DM's gates. If the DM doesn't want a civil war in the game, it's not going to happen. If the DM DOES want a civil war, it's going to happen. At best the players can try to beg and plead their case, but, at the end of the day, it's 100% up to the DM.

 

[Hussar]

How did I determine all this? A combination of random rolls plus knowledge of the personalities of the various leaders (mostly ex-slave lords).

How did the players determine any of this?

 

[Hussar]

While I've had 4 players do so, a total of 7 times. Including the second module I ever owned... Q1. Birthday gift, Sept. '81. A couple Traveller ones, a few AD&D ones, and one 5E one. (My players kicked in to get me the 5e Out of the Abyss. While it was brand new.)

I'm not counting the more than 20 modules the stores have provided me to run since 1989. Most of which I got to keep. In the 1989 to 1994 time frame, I ran a monthly AD&D Retail Play module for my FLGS. A few times, it was Alternity, instead. I didn't have to buy my Alternity cores - but I did have to run 16 hours of Alternity modules from the Retail Play modules. I also was given a severe discount on LUG-Trek for running a demo.

This also does not count the three core rulebooks players have bought for me so they could try them as players. One of which was TMNT.

Yeah, I gotta say, I'm finding @Lanefan's experience a bit strange. But, then, you have to remember, he's only run 2 campaigns in the last twenty years or so. So, it's a bit of a different table. I imagine you're a lot like me and run new campaigns pretty routinely. I've played/run over a dozen campaigns in 5e alone.

I mean, I had players asking me to run the Shattered Obelisk campaign last week. Which means when my current Spelljammer homebrew wraps up, I pretty much know what I'm going to be running.

 

[Maxperson]

Absolutely there is.

The agenda is to present an interesting place for the players to adventure in.

I'm living proof that there isn't. When I set up events, I don't have a desire for the players to interact or not interact. My "agenda" is only to present the world in a living, breathing manner.

IOW, every town WILL have something going wrong.

No. I often have towns where things are fine that the PCs travel through on the way to wherever they are going.

Every cave WILL have a monster in it.

Also not true. Some caves are empty.

At no point will the party travel through peaceful areas with no conflicts.

The games you describe are odd to me. A world where there's a monster or event around every corner and/or hiding behind every rock and tree is highly unrealistic and I would find such a game unfun. As would my players.

If the party wanders into that dungeon, there's going to be monsters in that dungeon. No dungeon is ever just a bunch of dusty, empty rooms with nothing in them.

That is mostly true. There have been very few dungeons where I haven't encountered anything, and those were all very small tombs and such. Anything worth the name dungeon has something of interest to the players in it.

Which has zero to do with creating a "living world".

Correct. Setting up adventures isn't a part of a living, breathing world. Adventures are aimed at the players being present. Living, breathing events are independent of the players.

A sandbox without conflicts would be a boring thing indeed.

Sure. They just aren't going to be in every town, behind every tree and in every mud puddle. There will be towns where the PCs stop off to buy supplies, maybe blow off steam in the tavern. Nothing of adventuring note to be found.

 

[Micah Sweet]

How did the players determine any of this?

Not the game we play. It might be the game you play, and that's fine. Still no reason to make D&D a different game for everybody. I don't even know what it is about D&D specifically that makes you not only want to play it this way, but to force chapters of material into the DMG (certainly pushing out other material) to accommodate it? Is it just because it's the most popular game, and thus the most promising way to spread your agenda?

Seriously, Hussar's Quest. Thank about it.

 

[aramis erak]

Yeah, I gotta say, I'm finding @Lanefan's experience a bit strange. But, then, you have to remember, he's only run 2 campaigns in the last twenty years or so. So, it's a bit of a different table. I imagine you're a lot like me and run new campaigns pretty routinely. I've played/run over a dozen campaigns in 5e alone.

I mean, I had players asking me to run the Shattered Obelisk campaign last week. Which means when my current Spelljammer homebrew wraps up, I pretty much know what I'm going to be running.

My average campaign duration is 3-4 months.

I've met over a dozen people through the years who had multi-decade campaigns, having only ever played one or two campaigns, and maybe 1-2 systems in outside sessions.
4 chaps, they played two campaigns for a period of 20 years... they had on AD&D 1E campaign and a Traveller campaign. They tried a few sessions of other things, too. Their campaigns began when they relocated after serving in the 'Nam war. They upgraded rules to a point.

The thing is, they don't consider it a separate campaign when they use the same map and timeline, but totally different characters on a totally different set of adventures.

I do consider those multiple campaigns.

I don't know where @Lanefan sits on that score, and won't try to speak for him.

 

[Hussar]

/edit

Sorry, my bad.

 

[Hussar]

@Maxperson - I refuse to answer fisking. I'm sorry, but, I will not respond to quoted posts like that. It's far too hard to read and follow.

 

[Maxperson]

@Maxperson - I refuse to answer fisking. I'm sorry, but, I will not respond to quoted posts like that. It's far too hard to read and follow.

Understood. I have ADHD and I have to post that way in order to organize my thoughts and not forget things. Not sure what "fisking" means.

 

[Hussar]

Understood. I have ADHD and I have to post that way in order to organize my thoughts and not forget things. Not sure what "fisking" means.

Ahh. Fisking is when you break down a post bit by bit and then respond to each individual bit. The post you pulled from was very short and you split it up sentence by sentence, responding to each sentence individually which loses context.