Is "GM Agency" A Thing?

[payn]

Can’t the same be said of player agency?

No, generally player agency is always important regardless of rules system.

 

[FrogReaver]

No, generally player agency is always important regardless of rules system.

Umm. That’s not really what I asked.

 

[FrogReaver]

My take. Different GM agency just means a different game. So technically it is a thing but talking about the different game rules for the different game accomplishes the same thing.

All games limit player and GM agency in specific ways. Those differences are primarily what makes for different games.

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.

 

[Lanefan]

My take. Different GM agency just means a different game. So technically it is a thing but talking about the different game rules for the different game accomplishes the same thing.

All games limit player and GM agency in specific ways. Those differences are primarily what makes for different games.

For example - in d&d a DM doesn’t have the agency to make all weapons do 1d20 damage.

Well, in fact yes she does, via house rule.

And that's one area where GMs have agency* that players generally don't: house rules, rule changes, and kitbashes to whatever base system is in use. Players can suggest changes, but (usually) only the GM can make them.

* - it should go without saying (but I'd probably better say it anyway) that a good GM uses this particular agency before play begins in the game/campaign rather than on the fly during it.

 

[FrogReaver]

Well, in fact yes she does, via house rule.

And that's one area where GMs have agency* that players generally don't: house rules, rule changes, and kitbashes to whatever base system is in use. Players can suggest changes, but (usually) only the GM can make them.

* - it should go without saying (but I'd probably better say it anyway) that a good GM uses this particular agency before play begins in the game/campaign rather than on the fly during it.

Houserule only work because the social contract allows for the particular ones chosen.

 

[innerdude]

This is the PbtA element I was originally alluding to. Do those games contrain GM Agency more than traditional RPGs because they tell you what happens when a roll is successful? If so, how and why? D&D tells you what happens when a PC hits or a monster fails a save. But, at the same, time, the GM in 5E has a lot of latitude to determine results from other kinds of actions and rolls.

So here's an example move to Gather Information, from Ironsworn page 62:

GATHER INFORMATION When you search an area, ask questions, conduct an investigation, or follow a track, roll +wits. If you act within a community or ask questions of a person with whom you share a bond, add +1. On a strong hit, you discover something helpful and specific. The path you must follow or action you must take to make progress is made clear. Envision what you learn (Ask the Oracle if unsure), and take +2 momentum. On a weak hit, the information complicates your quest or introduces a new danger. Envision what you discover (Ask the Oracle if unsure), and take +1 momentum. On a miss, your investigation unearths a dire threat or reveals an unwelcome truth that undermines your quest. Pay the Price.

If a player rolls a strong hit, some information is required to be provided by a source (the GM or other player input) that clearly indicates a path to follow or action to take to make progress.

This is a classic case where a "trad" D&D / GURPS / WHFP / Rolemaster GM might introduce some prevarication invisibly, without the characters knowing, by inserting his or her own translation of what a success means.

"Well, I don't really think they deserve to get this bit of information, because that's too important to something else I have planned later. And I don't think they deserve this other bit of information, because they didn't tell me they specifically ransacked every tomb in the cemetery. And they probably don't deserve this bit of information, because, well, that's just too cool for me to give away now, and I want an appropriate dramatic moment to reveal it." So the GM throws out some half-baked, mostly vague, generally not useful information that the players already knew.

This kind of thing absolutely runs counter to the principles / spirit / intent of Ironsworn specifically, and PbtA play generally.

The thing about PbtA, is moves matter, A LOT. Every failed move introduces a potential obstacle or setback; there are no neutral failures. If a player succeeds at a check, give them the benefit the move describes.

 

[Snarf Zagyg]

My take. Different GM agency just means a different game. So technically it is a thing but talking about the different game rules for the different game accomplishes the same thing.

All games limit player and GM agency in specific ways. Those differences are primarily what makes for different games.

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.

I will go back to what was said, oh, about 1000 comments ago in the other thread.

Agency is necessarily context-dependent. Because we don't even have a working definition of what, exactly, player agency is in all TTRPGs, we can't meaningfully discuss that idea between games.

To use the analogy; if someone wanted to talk about player agency in a sport, they probably could. You could discuss if a batter has "more agency" than the pitcher in baseball. You could talk about whether, in general, a point guard has "more agency" than a center in basketball games. You could discuss the amount of agency that different quarterbacks have within their different systems.

But use of the term starts to break down when you try to use it to compare disparate games; what is to say that a golfer has "more" or "less" agency than a power forward, given that they are playing with disparate rules and in different contexts?

So I agree with you that agency (whether player, or DM, or "participant") is context-dependent and will depend on the game rules being used, and is unhelpful when discussing the differences between rules.

 

[ninjayeti]

I don't think it is a perfect analogy, but I do think that rules lite games tend to encourage/require a lot more big judgment calls by GMs in how to handle situations, where is crunchier systems (3.x, 4E, PF2) provide rules for everything and expect the GM is just adjudicating the application of those rules. So in a rules lite game the player asks "can I knock the idol out of the necromancer's hand?" and the GM makes a one-off call for that situation, where as in a crunchier game the player declares "I use the disarm maneuver to knock the idol out of the necromancer's hand, because of the feat chain I took I can do it as a bonus action and get a +10 in my opposed skill check."

I know some OSR advocates (e.g. James at the Grognardia blog) have criticized crunchier systems on the grounds that the "don't trust" GMs. While I don't entirely agree with this perspective, I do think this could be fairly characterized as a "GM agency" concern - i.e., let me figure out how to rule this, rather than giving me pages of rules telling me how it should be run.

 

[piou]

I can think of one case in which the GM agency concept might describe something concrete and it has to do with the "informed decision" part. Sometimes players ask a question without making their intention clear. Something like "Is there a purple book in the library?". As a GM it's not that you can't make a choice ("Yes there is." or "No there isn't"). But that decision isn't informed unless you ask the player to clarify their intention: "A purple book? What do you have in mind?" and that information allows you to get agency by making a now informed decision about the presence of such a book. Should players refuse to explain their intention, this robs the GM of the ability to make an informed decision, reducing their narrative input on the story.

 

[Umbran]

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

In most traditional (not "trad", specifically, I'm using the term in a colloquial, not jargon, sense) RPGs, the GM has so much agency that it hardly bears concern. When the GM makes all the setting elements, designs all the NPCs and controls their decisions, creates all the adventures, builds and places all the monsters/adversaries, and adjudicates the rules (in many cases along with a form of "Rule 0"), the GM traditionally has an embarrassment of riches in terms of choices for how to influence the game.

Some newer game designs share the ability to influence the game differently. In such designs, it may be realistic to speak to what agency the GM, and other players, do or don't have, and when.

Note that, opening paragraph aside, I'm not much of a fan of speaking about "more" or "less" agency. There is no useful measure of agency that we can use to quantify or compare. We can speak about types of agency, and their dynamics and impact on play, though.