Is "GM Agency" A Thing?

[Reynard]

I'd say that turns on how the discussion of running the modules is right out the gate. Under normal circumstances I'd agree with you, gub if the agreement was that the module was going to be run as-is (and the GM signed off on that), I think that's back to the players have a set of expectations the GM should fill there (and if he didn't want to, that should have been spelled out earlier, though in most cases that sort of rigidity shouldn't be assumed by anyone on either side unless it was spellled out).

Of course if the GM agreed it would be, you know, an agreement, but it's not a generally assumed thing based on my experience. I'll grant you something like Tomb oh Horrors being expected to be run "by the book" because of what that module is, but beyond that I can't think of a single example. Even running the classic Dragonlance modules I wasn't asked to play them completely by the book.

 

[Reynard]

Only if the only relevant agency is the ability for the GM to change rules. I've got an awful lot of things I do when running games that are my choice other than changing rules; that already well exceeds the options a player, or even a whole group of players have.

Basically, I don't see "has agency" on a GM's end by necessity meaning "has all the marbles".

"Rulings overules" doesn't mean to me "unilaterally change the rules." It means making calls and moving on when there is confusion, as well as just making a judgment call when there isn't an available rule for the situation.

 

[Micah Sweet]

A shared fiction has to be shared. It's there on the tin! If the players haven't read the book, and don't know what it says, the book isn't a shared fiction.

So what is a DM doing if they're running a module (without changing anything)?

 

[Thomas Shey]

"Rulings overules" doesn't mean to me "unilaterally change the rules." It means making calls and moving on when there is confusion, as well as just making a judgment call when there isn't an available rule for the situation.

That's true, but there's usually also the idea that limiting the number of views is a virtue. You'll excuse me if I'm a little cynical about "only making judgment calls when necessary" when your choice of system structure maximizes how frequent its necessary.

(To make it clear this is is not me using "you" in the personal sense).

 

[Reynard]

That's true, but there's usually also the idea that limiting the number of views is a virtue. You'll excuse me if I'm a little cynical about "only making judgment calls when necessary" when your choice of system structure maximizes how frequent its necessary.

(To make it clear this is is not me using "you" in the personal sense).

Everyone likes different degrees of rules granularity and certainty. I personally think RPGs benefit from a strong core and fuzzy periphery, but I appreciate that other folks want other paradigms.

 

[Lanefan]

I have never seem that happen. Moreover, I have never seen it happen where a group demanded a module be run precisely by the book with no modifications.

If a group has enough prior knowledge of a module to even tell whether it's being run by the book or not, it's probably time to pull out a different module.

And players who acted that entitled would certainly be looking for a different GM and I would hope they never found one. The GM isn't your servant.

Hear hear.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Everyone likes different degrees of rules granularity and certainty. I personally think RPGs benefit from a strong core and fuzzy periphery, but I appreciate that other folks want other paradigms.

And I get that, I really do; but as I said, it rings a little hollow if someone is going to claim they really only want to make decisions in rare cases and the rest of the time the players know what's what, if they choose a system that is going to virtually force them to make judgment calls frequently. When you've got that situation, I think players can question what the real purpose going on there is.

(Again, there's always going to be some limits here, but I kind of think if a GM's idea of "agency" is his control over rules, rather than most of the world, there may be a problem there).

 

[Umbran]

I see a general correlation between the use of the phrase “mother may I?” and attempts to limit GM agency. Some people don’t seem to want GMs to use their own judgment to adjudicate, and would rather have clearly defined rules and dice rolls.

Yup. I feel this usually results from a lack of trust, though there certainly are exceptions.

One basic exception is less about lack of trust, and more about lack of consistency.

Players have to have some ability to guess what might succeed, and how likely it is to succeed, or they lack the ability to make informed choices. The more things are ensconced in rules they know and can depend on, the better they can make those choices. The more things are handled by the whim of the GM, the more shaky those decisions become.

Now, a GM who has a sense or talent for making those calls consistently, the more the GM is like a rulebook the player can learn. The more inconsistent or arbitrary the GM is, the less the players can depend on the results.

Some players like to have more of that consistency, and they will prefer rulesets with more definition, others don't find it as important.

 

[Umbran]

If a group has enough prior knowledge of a module to even tell whether it's being run by the book or not, it's probably time to pull out a different module.

I think the content of the module thing is a red herring.

One doesn't need to know the content of the module to see when someone is thinking and changing stuff on the fly, especially if that change resolves some frustration or tension.

For example, there can be a difference between the GM's expressions when they are actually focused on doing some mental math, and when they are pretending to do so while vamping and deciding what a result is.

Most of us don't have (or don't remember to use) a great poker face while GMing.

 

[Bill Zebub]

One basic exception is less about lack of trust, and more about lack of consistency.

Players have to have some ability to guess what might succeed, and how likely it is to succeed, or they lack the ability to make informed choices. The more things are ensconced in rules they know and can depend on, the better they can make those choices. The more things are handled by the whim of the GM, the more shaky those decisions become.

Now, a GM who has a sense or talent for making those calls consistently, the more the GM is like a rulebook the player can learn. The more inconsistent or arbitrary the GM is, the less the players can depend on the results.

Some players like to have more of that consistency, and they will prefer rulesets with more definition, others don't find it as important.

Yeah, that makes sense to me.

The thing I find curious is that the consistency they are willing to get in return is not necessarily a high likelihood of success, but just a known probability.