Player agency and game master agency

[KaussH]

So we hear and talk a lot about player agency here, how gms should use abilities that take out charicters, or force them to change , or restrict them or ect.

How do people feel about game master agency and what gms should be allowed to do, what players should not use against the gm, and overall the roll of the gm in most games.

I see them treated as anything from harsh rulers who cant be trusted to a sub level of player that is allowed no more than a player level role but who does most the work, to a random numbers generator for players who dont want any icky plot.

[Quertus]

What do I think? I think that the phrase is… problematic at best.

Much like a painter with a blank canvas, a GM has full agency within that canvas¹.

If that canvas is intended for a grade school, painting a scene from Saving Private Ryan or a porno on that canvas is gonna be problematic.

Similarly, a GM has *too much* agency, and benefits from restrictions designed to limit the damage that that freedom can cause, and to teach them the concept of limiting their agency to that which is acceptable to their group.

¹ the PCs are explicitly *not* on that canvas.

[KaussH]

So why cant pcs be part of the canvas?
I run a lot of horror games, as well as high/low/mid fantasy. It is very common for gms to force pcs to do things in horror. Fright checks, guts checks, ect, often come with a "you must act this was" and even " the gm will take control of your pc" or " the gm will tell you what happened to you later. "


Yet some players feel the gm should never do anything to pcs that cant be fixed in a round. Some going as far as believing a murder hobo pc shouldnt be arrested as that stops player agency.
Traps, sleeping or other time out poisons, mind control, ect are poor, even if they make narative sense.


The division seems to be, what are the limits of player agency. Do the pcs need to be allowed to read the adventure and monster stats so they can have full knowledge, or should there be a point where the player agency stops and its gm agency now...

[Saintheart]

The division seems to be, what are the limits of player agency. Do the pcs need to be allowed to read the adventure and monster stats so they can have full knowledge, or should there be a point where the player agency stops and its gm agency now...

Player agency has to do with the players' capability to make choices within the game construct. PCs reading the adventure ahead of time and monster stats is an issue of metagaming -- not to mention that PCs don't read anything, players do.

[zarionofarabel]

As GM I am the undisputed master of imaginationland! If I say a rock falls, then everyone dies!!! I crush the PCs, see them driven before me, and hear the whining of their players!!!!!

Also, I want the PCs to be able to alter imaginationland! I want the players to feel they have a say in what happens in imaginationland!!! And I want the PCs to live long enough and gain enough narrative momentum that the emerging narrative makes a fun story to tell when the game ends!!!!!

Also, dice are involved so when a PC tries something I don't get yelled at for just deciding that it succeeds or fails.

Not sure if that explains anything...

[KaussH]

Player agency has to do with the players' capability to make choices within the game construct. PCs reading the adventure ahead of time and monster stats is an issue of metagaming -- not to mention that PCs don't read anything, players do.
True. Player read in the real world. The point is the same. Some players beleve that due to player agency means everything they know oog is known to their pcs. Including where loot is in an adventure for example.

[Quertus]

So why cant pcs be part of the canvas?


Yet some players feel the gm should never do anything to pcs that cant be fixed in a round. Some going as far as believing a murder hobo pc shouldnt be arrested as that stops player agency.
Traps, sleeping or other time out poisons, mind control, ect are poor, even if they make narative sense.


The division seems to be, what are the limits of player agency. Do the pcs need to be allowed to read the adventure and monster stats so they can have full knowledge, or should there be a point where the player agency stops and its gm agency now...

We aren't talking about Player Agency, we're talking about GM Agency. The GM has control of everything except the PCs.

There's a little rhyme I can never seem to remember to answer that question but... if the GM wants to make all the decisions for the PCs, they should just go write single author fiction.

And, as I said, the GM should learn to limit their use of their Agency to only what is actually fun. So, if the players find imprisonment, or mind control, or some other element to be detrimental to their fun, don't do that!!!

"it's realistic for it to be there"? Well, build your skills to do the worldbuilding to make a world / adventure where it isn't realistic for it to be there.

[zarionofarabel]

The more I think about it the more I feel that the GM neither has nor requires "agency" the way it is presented for players.

[KaussH]

We aren't talking about Player Agency, we're talking about GM Agency. The GM has control of everything except the PCs.

There's a little rhyme I can never seem to remember to answer that question but... if the GM wants to make all the decisions for the PCs, they should just go write single author fiction.

And, as I said, the GM should learn to limit their use of their Agency to only what is actually fun. So, if the players find imprisonment, or mind control, or some other element to be detrimental to their fun, don't do that!!!

"it's realistic for it to be there"? Well, build your skills to do the worldbuilding to make a world / adventure where it isn't realistic for it to be there.

Why?
And I dont mean why not entertain the players, but why is it just the players fun that matters. Why should a gm run a game where they are restricted to only what the players want?


There is a wide range between catering to every need of every player, and controlling every move and thought they make like puppets.
A gm should make their game fun for the players they have, yes. But the gm should also be allowed to use their agency to freely run the game. Like saying no to some character options, or telling them not to read the gm only game material, or asking for a clear divide between player and character info.


We have a lot of talk about different player styles not being "bad no fun not good' but there seems to be a super lack of players accepting gms get to have fun as well. And part of that fun can be rooted in gm agency, and being allowed to put together and submit the game they want to run. And then seeing the buy in for the players who will enjoy the set up.

A gm running a high combat game, or a super trap and puzzle game, or a npc talking oriented game isnt a bad gm. And if they set rules to allow such a game to flourish, that is not the gm abusing their agency at the expense of the players agency.

[KaussH]

The more I think about it the more I feel that the GM neither has nor requires "agency" the way it is presented for players.

So the gm is just there to do what the pcs want, and roll numbers and basicly be the flexible computer program for them?

[Pex]

What the DM says goes. If he says enough stupid stuff the players go too.

The DM can do whatever he wants up to the point it ticks off enough players no one wants to play his game. He can decide that perhaps he doesn't have what it takes to DM and choose to be a player forever after. He can decide to learn what he's doing wrong, change his behavior, and have players try out his New Self even getting feedback to be sure he's doing fine. He can decide he's the best DM ever and the problem is whiny players so screw them. He searches for new players he hasn't met before and hope they're the better players he's been looking for.

As a matter of personal opinion, the best DMs are the ones who play with their players, not against them nor in dispassionate apathy. They encourage player creativity and fun. That DOES NOT mean they can never say No to a player nor bad stuff can never happen to a PC nor a PC can never die. It's the DM who understands and accepts that it's his campaign but it's everyone's game. He runs the game. He's not the players' Boss.

[zarionofarabel]

So the gm is just there to do what the pcs want, and roll numbers and basicly be the flexible computer program for them?
Not sure I follow. The GM creates the shared imagination space the players play in, right? Or does that just pop into existence all on it's own?

I mean, someone has to describe some imagined scene in order for the other participants to alter, right? I might be wrong as I have never played a GM-less RPG, so maybe I am wrong.

As far as I understand, the root of "player agency" is the ability to alter the shared imagination space. A GM who denies a player "agency" essentially makes it so no matter what a player describes, the scene they had already planned comes to fruition. Aka, no matter which fork in the road the PCs take, they will meet the ogre. Whereas, a GM who fosters player "agency" will make it so the left fork is an ogre, and the right fork is a pizza party. Even if the GM wants the PCs to meet the ogre, if they choose the right fork, they get the pizza party.

How could a GM be denied "agency" in any form? How can it be said a GM even NEEDS "agency" of any kind?

As a GM, I alter the imagination space as I see fit. Thus I can foster or deny "agency" to players on a whim. They cannot do the same in return.

My 2 quid anyway...

[Mastikator]

The GM does 80% of the work in this shared imagination space, the players get to control their players but the GM controls everything. A good GM will also collaborate with the players to make their character fit into the GMs world, that means the PCs are partially created by the GM.

Even if you run a complete sandbox the sand is still provided by the GM. The players only haves the agency that the GM lets them have. Hell some people on this very board have argued that players should only have the illusion of agency, meaning it's all the GMs work.

Edit- To be honest I think the concept that the GM should be allowed to do anything is absurd, nobody can stop the GM, they can take it or leave it. A good GM may take suggestions, but never orders.

[NichG]

I think 'agency' might be a bit of an overloaded term here. I'd say that there is usually not so much of an issue with GM agency in terms of the ability to make decisions which influence the course of events, but there is a bit of an imbalance of things which are held sacrosanct on one side of the table versus another.

For example, even brief mind control can be problematic when a GM uses it because it can violate a player's image of their character. Subtle things which force action a certain way are actually worse than overt ones - if the player can imagine their character's soul has been booted out of the body and a miniature demon is at the controls, then if their character takes actions under control they can't meld with the character's image then at least it can be excused. But if for example they imagine their character as 'someone who acts despite their fears, rather than someone who doesn't feel fear in the first place' and a failed Will save means that the character refuses to go into a spooky cave, or cowers in front of a dragon, or something like that, then it can really damage that image.

On the other hand, that same kind of protection of image generally doesn't extend to NPCs, especially when it comes to highly abstracted mechanics-based social interactions (e.g. Bluff, Diplomacy, Intimidate sorts of things). Those sorts of mechanics are rarely used against PCs (and PCs are often explicitly 'immune' to them), because it's easy to recognize that a high level villain getting a result of a 60 on a Diplomacy check and making the party's paladin switch sides and turn evil with no ability to resist or refute would make for very unsatisfying play. But from a GM point of view, the reverse situation is just as bad - having the wise king be fooled into trading their kingdom for a bean doesn't make the con man seem really clever and charismatic; rather, it damages the idea that the king is in fact wise.

This doesn't have to do with agency though, because the wise king being mind controlled via magic or blackmailed in an actually clever fashion doesn't place the king's wisdom in question. It's about the image of characters and the ability for those imagined aspects of a character - PC or NPC - to be respected by the flow of the narrative.

And that is something that I think players can sometimes transgress, even when the GM holds most of the power - because the players can place the GM in the position of having to decide between either invalidating the image of the NPCs they control or abusing their control of the game to protect that image (and in turn, potentially invalidating the image or agency of a PC). In that kind of situation, it's better that it not get to that point in the first place even if it means dropping OOC and discussing what sort of approach would actually work while respecting the characters of the PC and NPC involved.

[Quertus]

Why?
And I dont mean why not entertain the players, but why is it just the players fun that matters. Why should a gm run a game where they are restricted to only what the players want?

Why should the gradeschool artist not paint porn?


There is a wide range between catering to every need of every player, and controlling every move and thought they make like puppets.
A gm should make their game fun for the players they have, yes.

Good, glad we agree. /Thread?


But the gm should also be allowed to use their agency to freely run the game. Like saying no to some character options, or telling them not to read the gm only game material, or asking for a clear divide between player and character info.

Although I'm not disagreeing, that has absolutely nothing to do with "GM Agency" as a parallel to "Player Agency".


We have a lot of talk about different player styles not being "bad no fun not good' but there seems to be a super lack of players accepting gms get to have fun as well. And part of that fun can be rooted in gm agency, and being allowed to put together and submit the game they want to run. And then seeing the buy in for the players who will enjoy the set up.

Although I'm not disagreeing, that has absolutely nothing to do with "GM Agency" as a parallel to "Player Agency". And "getting buy-in" - assuming that this is done intelligently and in good faith, and not "you said I could touch you - why are you upset that I've stabbed you :smallconfused:" - is a good thing.

Of course, like using their Agency wisely, getting buy-in well is a trained skill. I've watched plenty of GMs completely flub it.


A gm running a high combat game, or a super trap and puzzle game, or a npc talking oriented game isnt a bad gm. And if they set rules to allow such a game to flourish, that is not the gm abusing their agency at the expense of the players agency.

Although I'm not disagreeing, that has absolutely nothing to do with "GM Agency" as a parallel to "Player Agency".

[Batcathat]

For example, even brief mind control can be problematic when a GM uses it because it can violate a player's image of their character. Subtle things which force action a certain way are actually worse than overt ones - if the player can imagine their character's soul has been booted out of the body and a miniature demon is at the controls, then if their character takes actions under control they can't meld with the character's image then at least it can be excused. But if for example they imagine their character as 'someone who acts despite their fears, rather than someone who doesn't feel fear in the first place' and a failed Will save means that the character refuses to go into a spooky cave, or cowers in front of a dragon, or something like that, then it can really damage that image.

Very much agree with this. Actual mind control can be annoying from a player perspective but I much rather have that than a GM deciding how my character acts "of their own free will".


We have a lot of talk about different player styles not being "bad no fun not good' but there seems to be a super lack of players accepting gms get to have fun as well.

While I agree the GM should obviously have fun as well, I've never gotten the impression (whether from this thread or in general) that most people don't think they should.

As for the original question, I'm finding it hard to put what I think into words. A GM should obviously listen to what sort of game the players want (if the GM only wants to run peaceful social encounters and the players only want to be murderhobos, it's probably better for all if they just don't play together) and stay away from railroading (unless the players prefer to be railroaded, I guess) but not listen to every little opinion or demand from the players either. I don't like playing with a GM who never listens to their players but I don't want to play with one who bends over backwards to adapt the game to every little request either.

[Satinavian]

Why?
And I dont mean why not entertain the players, but why is it just the players fun that matters. Why should a gm run a game where they are restricted to only what the players want?

The players and the GM should have fun.

If the ideas of fun are so different between players and GM that it is impossible that all have fun, they should not play together. In all other cases, they can but should keep the game in the common fun area.


There is no universal set of GM powers and rights that are fun for everyone. Groups have to find their own solutions.

[MoiMagnus]

IMO, Respecting someone's agency = Respecting the choices this person make by letting them having an influence the game in noticeable ways.

Example of a DM disrespecting Player agency:
- My character do this action.
- Well, I don't like the consequences of this action, so I will say it doesn't have any particular effect as [insert random excuse].

Example of a Player disrespecting DM agency:
- So here is a situation.
- Well, I don't like what you just described, so I will refuse to interact with it and just do [insert random occupation].

In the end, if you're willingly trying to push the game in a direction another player doesn't agrees to, you are probably disrespecting their agency. It doesn't matter which one of you two is the DM (if any).

Since the rules empower the DM more than the players, it's less likely for a DM's agency to be disrespected. But I would consider games where the DMs tries to suggest plot hook after plot hook but the team of PC just refuse to interact with any of them and remain at the tavern telling stupid jokes as a typical example of a campaign where the DM's agency is totally ignored by the players.

PS: On top of respecting other player agency, it's even better to enhance other people's agency. For the DM, it means giving meaningful choices to the Players. For the Player, it means paying attention to what the DM says, and helping him finding good hooks by collaborating with your backstory.

[OldTrees1]

The GM has total agency over the game and themselves. They have total control over the PCs, although not total control over the Players.

But in the vast majority of cases GMs voluntarily give up some of that control (exact amount varies) in order to allow it to be a multiplayer game.

How much control does the GM give up? Well, different published RPGs have different baselines. I suspect most GMs use something near the baseline for their RPG of choice. However I advocate the GM talk to the other players about player agency to see what works best for their group.

I like sandboxes but some players don't. I want to take that into account so I don't give those players too much more agency than they want. However since I like sandboxes I might choose towards the sandbox side of their comfort range.

If the GM and the players have incompatible comfort ranges for a campaign, the GM can decide not to run that campaign.


I see them treated as anything from harsh rulers who cant be trusted to a sub level of player that is allowed no more than a player level role but who does most the work, to a random numbers generator for players who dont want any icky plot.

GMs are one of the players. They happen to start with absolute control by default, but that would not be enjoyable for most groups, so the groups have a mature conversation to find what works best for all the players involved (the GM is a player).

Some groups don't have that conversation. That can lead to a GM that is too controlling or other players being inconsiderate of the GM. I advocate communication. However I should remember that horror stories are a biased sample set. My group never made a thread because we are happy. A "everything is fine" thread would be quite boring.

[Quertus]

I like sandboxes but some players don't. I want to take that into account so I don't give those players too much more agency than they want. However since I like sandboxes I might choose towards the sandbox side of their comfort range.

If the GM and the players have incompatible comfort ranges for a campaign, the GM can decide not to run that campaign.

Kudos on describing things in terms of a range!

That said... out of curiosity, what does that look like in practice? How do you push things towards sandboxy, and how do you keep from going too far / know when you've gone too far?

More generally - and useful to this thread - how do you learn your group's comfort range? My general method (in case one couldn't guess from my post history) has been to attempt communication, and then, when that inevitably1 fails, start hitting the GM over the head with a (verbal) clue-by-four until they get the slightest inkling of an idea that maybe there's a memo that they missed. So, what does building the GMing skills to be able to understand your group's range look like?

1 Actually, "having a conversation like an adult" works for many GMs; nonetheless, "listening" is a skill that many of us could benefit from, or benefit from improving.

[Spiderswims]

A gm should make their game fun for the players they have, yes. But the gm should also be allowed to use their agency to freely run the game. Like saying no to some character options, or telling them not to read the gm only game material, or asking for a clear divide between player and character info.

First, I'd note you jump around to like four or five other topics that go way out side of anything that could be agency.

Plenty of GMs will ask any player that reads the adventure and tries to use it to their advantage in the game to leave. And plenty of GMs can change things in a written adventure, not to mention just have any event happen or not happen.


So, what does building the GMing skills to be able to understand your group's range look like?

Well, if your a person with expert personal social analytical skills you can use that ability. And you can always try the basic Cold Read of another person or group.

Though, most of the time, you just need to do the old fashioned way of Trial and Error.

For the most part, with a new group, the GM should make most if not all of the first adventure a cakewalk. With maybe only one or two hard parts.

And test out small, not things that effect the whole game. I like to use things like a cave with a chest full of diamonds and some type of monster or trap that is not part of the main adventure. Watch how the players try to get the chest, and how they react if they fail.

[OldTrees1]

Kudos on describing things in terms of a range!

That said... out of curiosity, what does that look like in practice? How do you push things towards sandboxy, and how do you keep from going too far / know when you've gone too far?

More generally - and useful to this thread - how do you learn your group's comfort range? My general method (in case one couldn't guess from my post history) has been to attempt communication, and then, when that inevitably1 fails, start hitting the GM over the head with a (verbal) clue-by-four until they get the slightest inkling of an idea that maybe there's a memo that they missed. So, what does building the GMing skills to be able to understand your group's range look like?

1 Actually, "having a conversation like an adult" works for many GMs; nonetheless, "listening" is a skill that many of us could benefit from, or benefit from improving.

Communication is a skill that can be improved indefinitely.

Start with listening to others when they speak. Make yourself approachable so they are willing to speak. Listen to yourself to see if you have concerns. Speak about your concerns. Keep in mind your goal is everyone has fun (if that is not your goal, adopt it as a goal :smalltongue:). Oh and you can ramp this up by asking instead of waiting for them to speak.

Continue by listening to other people outside your group. One reason I came to this thread, and the horror story threads is to learn about concerns the players (the GM is a player) might have but are not voicing. Sidenote, did I mention the GM is a player? That is a really good way to conceptualize it because it allows you to say things like "wanting all players to have fun" /sidenote. But one of the things these threads have reinforced is that people's preferences about agency are multidimensional and change as the context changes. People even use slightly different definitions of player agency based upon what part of it they personally value or don't personally value.

---

As a baseline if the players have heard the word "railroad" before, then if they feel there is too little agency they can at least call it railroading. If I hear a player complaining, then that is a time to learn what they are complaining about.

Too much agency on the other hand often first shows up by players complaining about being lost. Or players complaining about not knowing what to do (which is different from them celebrating not knowing what to do). If I hear a player complaining, then that is a time to learn what they are complaining about.

---

Could I push things towards sandboxy? I start preparing for "accidental derails", I remove some rails, and I look for additional ways the PC choices could alter the future events. What that looks like depends on where the original position was on the railroad to sandbox continuum. Listen to the players to see if they like these changes or if they start to feel lost. Or better yet ask them instead of just listening.

BUT, it is even better if you start somewhere instead of pushing somewhere. If I find out the other players confort range is further towards railroading but still overlaps my comfort range, I can just pick a starting point that is closer to the center of mass of all of our comfort ranges rather than all the comfort ranges excluding my own.

---

Communicate (listen, speak, and ask) with everyone in the group. Watch for complaints, especially those about "railroad" or "lost". Those are opportunities to learn and improve the situation.

[Quertus]

--snip--

Thank you for that amazing reply! I'm going to give it another pass here later, and see how many questions remain, rather that inundating you with (what I suspect are) my reading comprehension issues. :smallredface:

[icefractal]

But from a GM point of view, the reverse situation is just as bad - having the wise king be fooled into trading their kingdom for a bean doesn't make the con man seem really clever and charismatic; rather, it damages the idea that the king is in fact wise.

This doesn't have to do with agency though, because the wise king being mind controlled via magic or blackmailed in an actually clever fashion doesn't place the king's wisdom in question. It's about the image of characters and the ability for those imagined aspects of a character - PC or NPC - to be respected by the flow of the narrative.This. It's fortunately not common, but there are a subset of of players who take the standpoint:
Any plan or gambit a player makes should succeed. If you rule against it or even say that its merits can be judged by you, then you're a bad / railroading GM.

And I'm not down with that. Players love to clown on NPCs, and for the most part that's fine. But unless the premise is "Everyone else in the world is an idiot, you're the first people with half a brain and that's why you're the heroes," then there's got to be someone competent around.

So no, in a world where illusions are a known thing, your tactic of "make a spooky voice claiming to be the former king" is not an automatic victory, any more than a short blurry video would be one in the modern age of deepfakes.

[KaussH]

First, I'd note you jump around to like four or five other topics that go way out side of anything that could be agency.

Plenty of GMs will ask any player that reads the adventure and tries to use it to their advantage in the game to leave. And plenty of GMs can change things in a written adventure, not to mention just have any event happen or not happen.


See, i would put that under gm agency, aka the ability of the gm to do things.

So what would you say gm agency is then? As oppsed to player agency or pc agency?

[Vahnavoi]

Player agency and GM agency are counted in fundamentally different ways.

Player agency is counted in number of meaningful decisions they can make in a game - "meaningful" meaning "impacts the game state". It only exist within movespace of a game after a player has deigned to sit down and play that game - before that, they're not players, they're people using their agency to choose whether to play a game or not. (Pro tip for empirically determining right amount of player agency: give your players a decision. If they complain it wasn't enough, next time give them two decisions. Rinse and repeat until they stop complaining. If they, at any point, complain about having too many decisions, next time, remove one decision. :smallwink::smalltongue:)

GM agency starts much earlier, in the design phase of a game. It's counted in number of ways they can set a game up, limited firstly by natural law (physics) , secondly by law of the land, thirdly by rules of the time, place and organization they are running the game in, and very last, the trust of the pool of potential players they actually have at hand.

It's possible for a GM to exhaust all their agency before a single die has been rolled, finding themselves a mere "yes man" for stronger personalities who actually decide what goes on in the game they're nominally running.

You don't really want to be that GM.

Instead, you want to be the sort of GM your potential players can acknowledge as intelligent, knowledgeable, just and imaginative enough for them to trust you enough to select you to serve as a referee and game designer for a game they're about to play.

Or, alternatively, if you are running games as part of an organization (such as a convention), you want to be the sort of GM your superiors can acknowledge as intelligent, knowledgeable, just and imaginative enough that they trust whatever crap you're about to throw together will be interesting enough to attract about six people to play it for four or five hours, without getting your organization swamped in complaints.

Do that and you have enough agency as a GM to do pretty much anything you please. It helps if you're actually intelligent, knowledgeable, just and imaginative.

[OldTrees1]

Thank you for that amazing reply! I'm going to give it another pass here later, and see how many questions remain, rather that inundating you with (what I suspect are) my reading comprehension issues. :smallredface:

Thank you, and thank you for voluntarily giving it another pass. I look forward to answering any remaining questions, or new ones from the 2nd pass. :smallsmile:


(Pro tip for empirically determining right amount of player agency: give your players a decision. If they complain it wasn't enough, next time give them two decisions. Rinse and repeat until they stop complaining. If they, at any point, complain about having too many decisions, next time, remove one decision. :smallwink::smalltongue:)

:smallbiggrin: Funny. And surprisingly good advise if you change the starting number to a better estimate, start with a larger (but shrinking) step size, and increase communication.


GM agency starts much earlier, in the design phase of a game. It's counted in number of ways they can set a game up, limited firstly by natural law (physics) , secondly by law of the land, thirdly by rules of the time, place and organization they are running the game in, and very last, the trust of the pool of potential players they actually have at hand.

It's possible for a GM to exhaust all their agency before a single die has been rolled, finding themselves a mere "yes man" for stronger personalities who actually decide what goes on in the game they're nominally running.

Wait, I am not sure I agree with your estimated outcome.
If you try to break physics, you will fail to break them. Exact consequences depend on what part you were trying to break (trying to be in 2 places at once usually results in you being in neither place).
If you break the law, you could be punished.
If you exhaust the trust of your players, ... well let me just say it is unlikely to lead to you being a "yes man".

Still I agree "You don't really want to be that GM."

It seems you are defining GM agency by the IRL limitations on the GM. Including player trust being a resource (although one that can be cultivated and grown as you later mention).

[Vahnavoi]

Wait, I am not sure I agree with your estimated outcome.

Yes, you are correct. In my haste, I forgot there are even worse outcomes for a prospecting GM, such as not being able to hold your designed game at all, because the process ended up with you dead or in jail.


It seems you are defining GM agency by the IRL limitations on the GM. Including player trust being a resource (although one that can be cultivated and grown as you later mention).
Yes. Again, because the GM's agency is counted in number of ways they can set up a game. Obviously, you are doing that as a real person, governed by real limitations, because game limitations only become a factor after selecting specific game rules. I was about to say "after you select a game system", but you might run out of agency before that (f.ex., your event organization and potential players might demand you run D&D, so no mattee how much you want to run FATAL, you sadly can't get that game off the ground.)

[Duff]

Why?
And I dont mean why not entertain the players, but why is it just the players fun that matters. Why should a gm run a game where they are restricted to only what the players want?

The GM has so much control of the game they run, most players (and forum posters) assume the GM will run a game that they will find fun (for values of fun which may include as much as you need of "I enjoy seeing my friends have fun and so I do this work". But you will see posts advising players "Don't run away from the GM's plot" and "Accept the premise of the game". That's the equivalent piece of advice.

GM agency isn't really a question. Players can't (within the game*) take away the GMs agency. Players using outside of game methods to influence the GMs behavior range from the necessary "I'm not comfortable with this theme in game" to the acceptable "I'd like to explore this area of my background soon please" to bullying "If you don't give my character a better sword I'm flipping the table and smashing all your glasses". As GM, you choose how much if at all you let players influence the game outside of their character's actions and you adjudicate or choose how their actions influence the world as well

But the GM can take away the players or the character's agency at any time. So they need to show some restraint in doing that. Some players are easier about it than others. In some genres and some systems it happens more than others.
Session 0 should give players a reasonable idea of what to expect in the game; "We're playing a normal D&D game" can be taken as "Some monsters will at times use charm, paralysis and sticky stuff to mess with your freedom of action, but most of them will be gone by end of the fight. There might be one or two adventures where monsters are using mind affecting powers outside of battle"
OTOH "We're playing D&D in Borovia, there's a lot of vampires around and you'll need to manage their different plots. You should seriously look at your will saves (or Will defence, or charisma saves or whatever...) should be warning the player to expect more loss of control. And maybe some players walk away from the 2nd game and that's fine. Maybe different players come to your table because you're running that game and that's fine too.

So, If your players are having fun, you aren't doing anything wrong. If you're having fun, it's good to continue. If your players aren't having fun, you need to change or your players will leave. If you aren't having fun, it's time to hand the screen to someone else.
Some players will indeed get upset if their character is charmed for a single round. This is neither right nor wrong, but it will influence which games they can play.
It's all about people interacting, so if that player joins the Borovia game, session 0 has not succeeded, but "who's fault?" is less productive than "What's the best thing to do now?"



* Some games have fate points or similar that allow the players some limited degree of control of the world. You as the GM have given them that power when you chose the game. You as the GM still adjudicate their use of that power.

[OldTrees1]

Yes, you are correct. In my haste, I forgot there are even worse outcomes for a prospecting GM, such as not being able to hold your designed game at all, because the process ended up with you dead or in jail.

Yes. Again, because the GM's agency is counted in number of ways they can set up a game. Obviously, you are doing that as a real person, governed by real limitations, because game limitations only become a factor after selecting specific game rules. I was about to say "after you select a game system", but you might run out of agency before that (f.ex., your event organization and potential players might demand you run D&D, so no matter how much you want to run FATAL, you sadly can't get that game off the ground.)

That kind of definition makes a lot of sense, and I would highly advise GMs never get anywhere close to fully exercising / exhausting their agency. Every GM horror story has been about a GM that still had player trust left to burn. The Tyrant GM writing a novel via heavy railroading, or maybe even illusionism still has agency since the players have not left ... yet.

And you already gave similar advice

You don't really want to be that GM.

On the other hand this definition also explains cultivating trust. I trust my current DMs more now than I did when they started. Mostly that resulted from communication and demonstrating they were worthy of even more trust (mostly through the group having fun).

[Lucas Yew]

Reading this thread made me wonder if anyone here had at least some experience with a well done campaign with a balance (=mutual agreement) between the 2 "agencies" proposed, and how such campaign turned out (whether it be a railroad or a sandbox, but probably the latter as it's much harder to run, obviously).

[Vahnavoi]

That kind of definition makes a lot of sense, and I would highly advise GMs never get anywhere close to fully exercising / exhausting their agency.

I disagree. But the way I disagree is somewhat complex, so we may need to take a detour to simpler realm of player agency.

In a game, can you kill yourself? (http://existentialcomics.com/comic/23) If yes, that's +1 to player agency. This is a good thing. But would this decision win you the game? That's a separate consideration, because killing yourself usually removes you from a game, so you have no agency in the game after that. But you still want to keep all your options in mind. You don't want to be an inauthentic player who is claiming they have no options when they actually have some. :smallwink:

Similarly, you don't want to be an inauthentic GM who is thinking they have no choice but to run a poor game. It is, simultaneously, exhausting your agency as a GM and exercising it in full to say "you know what, all games I could set up would be crap, so crew GMing! I'm going to do sex, drugs and rock'n'roll instead!"


Every GM horror story has been about a GM that still had player trust left to burn. The Tyrant GM writing a novel via heavy railroading, or maybe even illusionism still has agency since the players have not left ... yet.

Well yes. Most such "horror stories" are about a GM using their agency in a way their players dislike. What are the alternatives? A GM being forced to run a game their players dislike?


On the other hand this definition also explains cultivating trust. I trust my current DMs more now than I did when they started. Mostly that resulted from communication and demonstrating they were worthy of even more trust (mostly through the group having fun).

The sad thing is that among players, there is (and probably has been since the dawn of RPGs) a movement dedicated to cultivating distrust towards GMs. "A GM was mean to me once, therefore all GMs who do anything at all similar are bad GMs!"

It's similar to the train of though that "a Thief once stole from my character, therefore all Thieves are untrustworthy, therefore all players of Thieves are untrustworthy, therefore Thieves and anyone who wants to play a Thief ought to be banned!"

A lot of GMs find themselves starting behind the curve when it comes to building trust, for no reason other than some unrelated person having tried a similar idea and botching the landing.

[Yora]

Reading this thread made me wonder if anyone here had at least some experience with a well done campaign with a balance (=mutual agreement) between the 2 "agencies" proposed, and how such campaign turned out (whether it be a railroad or a sandbox, but probably the latter as it's much harder to run, obviously).

I've played in three campaigns and ran four. And I never felt railroaded, or had a player complain that I force them into a fixed story.

But nobody goes on the internet to complain about nothing being wrong.

[Batcathat]

But nobody goes on the internet to complain about nothing being wrong.

This is a very good point. Reading some of the complaints here or especially a place like RPG Horror stories (https://www.reddit.com/r/rpghorrorstories/) (Disclaimer: it has some really fun and interesting stories but your faith in humanity is likely to take a serious blow) you'd think that every other player or GM are horrible people just waiting to exploit the rules and other players but after role playing on and off for 20+ years I haven't encountered anyone nearly as bad.

[OldTrees1]

I disagree.
-snip-
you don't want to be an inauthentic GM who is thinking they have no choice but to run a poor game.

Okay, yes voluntarily not running a game is a valid outcome that technically falls under my statement. Good catch.

I had been talking about exhausting the players' trust. Especially since players stick around for a while even when their trust is being eroded.


Well yes. Most such "horror stories" are about a GM using their agency in a way their players dislike. What are the alternatives? A GM being forced to run a game their players dislike?
Most such horror stories are about a GM depleting so much player trust that the players needed to vent, and yet not so much trust that the players quit.

The decent alternatives are running a game everyone enjoys, or not running a game.


The sad thing is that among players, there is (and probably has been since the dawn of RPGs) a movement dedicated to cultivating distrust towards GMs. "A GM was mean to me once, therefore all GMs who do anything at all similar are bad GMs!"

It's similar to the train of though that "a Thief once stole from my character, therefore all Thieves are untrustworthy, therefore all players of Thieves are untrustworthy, therefore Thieves and anyone who wants to play a Thief ought to be banned!"

A lot of GMs find themselves starting behind the curve when it comes to building trust, for no reason other than some unrelated person having tried a similar idea and botching the landing.

I do not see such a movement. The closest I have seen is an increased awareness of common problems, a greater empathy for player preferences (the GM is a player), and an improved vocabulary to use to talk about the issue.

Players learning vocabulary or having personal experiences that help them better articulate when communicating is a positive thing for the GM. Communication is a very powerful tool, and silent concerns are more dangerous that vocal complaints.

Yes, some relationships start with less initial trust. That is neither here nor there. I have been there. There was a player that for unrelated reasons had a very low initial trust level. I started a 1:1 RPG for them, but found there was not enough trust to sustain the kind of campaign. So we stopped the campaign and continued to talk as friends. Eventually there could be enough trust to return to the campaign, but IRL got in the way.

[Tanarii]

Clearly GM agency is removed by the GM cheating.

Fudging, Illusionism, whim ruling in favor of their girlfriend. That kind of thing.

[Vahnavoi]

The decent alternatives are running a game everyone enjoys, or not running a game.

I meant alternative for what "GM horror stories" could be about.

---


I do not see such a movement.

Well consider yourself lucky. There was an entire game designer clique formed around this, either adjacent to or as part of the Forge, back when Forge was still a thing.

They were all about angsting over "shared narrative control" or illegitimacy of GM authority, making rules for reining in GM power etc., with some of them personally expressing opinions that maybe roleplaying games would be better off with no GMs at all.

(I do not know if any of them played GM-less games. I do play GM-less games all the time, and while they are different, I've yet to find any reason to believe they are universally better than games with GMs.)

[KaussH]

Reading this thread made me wonder if anyone here had at least some experience with a well done campaign with a balance (=mutual agreement) between the 2 "agencies" proposed, and how such campaign turned out (whether it be a railroad or a sandbox, but probably the latter as it's much harder to run, obviously).

Well of course. Honestly most games i run have to be a balance and go well. This is more an overall question.

[KaussH]

I do not see such a movement.

Its not new per say, just bigger and more vocal. There are very much some types of players who feel the gm is a hinderence to the game if they do anything but roll dice. People who make pcs just to "beat the gm" ( kinda funny as the gm isnt/shouldn't be tryingto win and honestly if they were trying to they have all the ammo. )

[Spiderswims]

Reading this thread made me wonder if anyone here had at least some experience with a well done campaign with a balance (=mutual agreement) between the 2 "agencies" proposed, and how such campaign turned out (whether it be a railroad or a sandbox, but probably the latter as it's much harder to run, obviously).

Yes, I do quite often. It's all about running a good game not just by the rules, but by the players too. It is the classic that a typical, inexperienced GM will back the game into a corner, go off the rails, run it into a wall or any such metaphor. Then they will panic and most often use the heavy handed approach of force to get things back to normal.

But a more experienced GM can not only seamlessly run with any snag to the game, but can also craft a game world of game play where few or no snags even happen.

[OldTrees1]

Reading this thread made me wonder if anyone here had at least some experience with a well done campaign with a balance (=mutual agreement) between the 2 "agencies" proposed, and how such campaign turned out (whether it be a railroad or a sandbox, but probably the latter as it's much harder to run, obviously).

Um, yes, but it is not a rare event. It is literally just the GM and the other players communicating and doing what works best for their group. I am struggling to figure out how to answer this (which is why the reply was delayed)

"Group got together, communicated, and had fun. Just like last campaign. The end." Sounds like the answer but does not sound like what you are looking for.

The main part there is using communication to identify when something can be improved, and the motivation to improve it.

[KaussH]

Um, yes, but it is not a rare event. It is literally just the GM and the other players communicating and doing what works best for their group. I am struggling to figure out how to answer this (which is why the reply was delayed)

"Group got together, communicated, and had fun. The end." Sounds like the answer but does not sound like what you are looking for.

On that note, agency on both sides seems to be less of an issue with one shots or super short arcs (2-3sessions)
There is a lot more " well its a one shot so x is ok"

[OldTrees1]

On that note, agency on both sides seems to be less of an issue with one shots or super short arcs (2-3sessions)
There is a lot more " well its a one shot so x is ok"

Yes, because people understand "sharing".

One way to handle imperfectly compatible preferences is to have them take turns being satisfied. I prefer both traps and conversations, but they generally have to take turns.

Another way to handle imperfectly compatible preferences is to find a compatible mixture that has a high total preference. I have numerous preferences of varying magnitude. I would gladly pass on a less important one if required to fulfill a more important one.

One shots and super short arcs take advantage of both of these tools when dealing with balancing the preferences of multiple people. You are making several mixtures and having those mixtures take turns. This can also happen on larger scale like arcs, campaigns, or even groups.

PS (obligatory comment): Since this post talked this in depth about preferences, I feel a need to mention player A can have a preference for player B's preferences to be satisfied. This is a healthy and natural consequence of some group relationships.

PS2 (reinforcing my answer to Lucas Yew): The GM starts with a lot of agency and cedes a sizable chunk of agency to create the player agency. I would claim it is common for groups to find a balance that works well enough for them.

[Pex]

Clearly GM agency is removed by the GM cheating.

Fudging, Illusionism, whim ruling in favor of their girlfriend. That kind of thing.

The closest I had to the DM favoring his girlfriend was during college when the DM had a crush on someone. It was her first RPG ever, and the fawning the DM gave her over every little thing she did was nauseating.

I had a DM where the wife played, and it was fine. That group lasted 12 years before the DM burned out. I miss them.

[KaussH]

Clearly GM agency is removed by the GM cheating.

Fudging, Illusionism, whim ruling in favor of their girlfriend. That kind of thing.
Gm cheating is a waste of time in my view. As the gm i can make up just about anything legally, so cheating is just, blah. If i want a monster to hit better, i can give them a bonus. If i want rocks to fall, they can. Reinforcements can be avalable at my need. And its all legal in like 99% of games.

Now in most cases doing it on the fly takes an excuse, but i have written pages of social dynamics and crunch balance checks so, i think i can spin words for an encounter modification.
The question is tho, should you.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Gm cheating is a waste of time in my view. As the gm i can make up just about anything legally, so cheating is just, blah. If i want a monster to hit better, i can give them a bonus. If i want rocks to fall, they can. Reinforcements can be avalable at my need. And its all legal in like 99% of games.

Now in most cases doing it on the fly takes an excuse, but i have written pages of social dynamics and crunch balance checks so, i think i can spin words for an encounter modification.
The question is tho, should you.

I'm not sure that "GM cheating" is well defined in D&D specifically. At least at a mechanical level--they can't cheat against the game rules, but can cheat against the established norms and expectations and other "meta-rules" established by the table. 5e at least empowers the DM to disregard or change any game-mechanical rule at any time. That doesn't leave much room for cheating as I see it. Fudging dice? He's empowered to do that. Illusionism? He's empowered to do that (at least at a mechanical level). Biased rulings? He's empowered to do that (at least at a mechanical level).

Now at a player level, most of those things are cause for revolt. Not because the DM broke some game rule, but because the DM broke the strictures y'all agreed on at session 0. Which is breaking a promise to real people. And that, to me, is much worse a violation than deviating from game rules.

[Vahnavoi]

There are two main ways a GM can cheat:

1) by lying about their game's rules. The GM has a pretty large agency to hide, choose, change and create rules, but these shouldn't be confused. To wit:

Hidden rules: "Things work in X way, but I don't have to tell you that."

Choosing rules: "I could choose either X or Y, so I choose X."

Changing rules: "Rule was X, but I'm changing it to Y."

Creating rules: "There was no rule for this so I just decided it works X way."

Lying about rules: "I'm saying things work X in way (but I'm really making them work Y way behind your back).

2) By lying to themselves. This is usually some variation of " I have no other option! " when the GM does, in fact, have options, they just aren't acknowledging them for whatever obtuse reason.

Example: "I can't kill my significant other's character!"

Yes you can.

"But they'll get mad at me!"

So? You can't control their emotional reaction, but you can control yours. Their madness is an externality and you should not let it affect your own virtue.

"But I might not get laid tonight! "

Are you an animal unable to rise above its carnal impulses? An automaton that dispenses services for sex? Stop being such a jellyfish and show some spine, even if in a fictional elf game. Embrace your radical freedom and rise to your position as an authentic GM. :smalltongue:

[PhoenixPhyre]

There are two ways a GM cheat:

1) by lying about their game's rules. The GM has a pretty large agency to hide, choose, change and create rules, but these shouldn't be confused. To wit:

Hidden rules: "Things work in X way, but I don't have to tell you that."

Choosing rules: "I could choose either X or Y, so I choose X."

Changing rules: "Rule was X, but I'm changing it to Y."

Creating rules: "There was no rule for this so I just decided X way."

Lying about rules: "I'm saying things work X in way (but I'm really making them work Y way behind your back).

2) By lying to themselves. This is usually some variation of " I have no other option! " when the GM does, in fact, have options, they just aren't acknowledging them for whatever obtuse reason.

Example: "I can't kill my significant other's character!"

Yes you can.

"But they'll get mad at me!"

So? You can't control their emotional reaction, but you can control yours. Their madness is an externality and you should not let it affect your own virtue.

"But I might not get laid tonight! "

Are you an animal unable to rise above its carnal impulses? An automaton that dispenses services for sex? Stop being such a jellyfish and show some spine, even if in a fictional elf game. Embrace your radical freedom and rise to your position as an authentic GM. :smalltongue:

Yes. And both of those are meta (ie player-level, not game level) cheating. Which I allowed was a thing. It's a violation of the inter-player compact, not an offense against the game rules. Doesn't make it better, just makes it different. And with different remedies.

[Vahnavoi]

All cheating is meta. You can't really break rules without going above and beyond rules.

[PhoenixPhyre]

All cheating is meta. You can't really break rules without going above and beyond rules.

I wasn't clear. I meant that DM cheating is breaking meta rules, so it's meta meta.

There are the game rules. Those are written down for all to see and involve interactions with the game world. Players can cheat here (rolling the wrong dice, not marking expenditures of resources, etc). DMs can't, because the game rules empower them to change/ignore them whenever they want, for whatever reason they want. At least in 5e D&D.

Then there are meta rules. These govern interplayer behavior and set who gets to change the game rules and how. Rules against metagaming are here, as are things like "no PvP", etc. DMs can break these just fine--they can "cheat" at the meta level but not at the game level.

[KaussH]

There are two main ways a GM can cheat:

1) by lying about their game's rules. The GM has a pretty large agency to hide, choose, change and create rules, but these shouldn't be confused. To wit:

Hidden rules: "Things work in X way, but I don't have to tell you .


So.... a lot of games have rules just like that. Deadlands ghostrock rules or breakers rules for example

Cursed items in most games

Ect.
The gm tells you the player faceing rules, but not the gm only facing rules. Thats not cheating tho, its part of the game.

[Vahnavoi]

I wasn't clear. I meant that DM cheating is breaking meta rules, so it's meta meta.

Ah, okay. See, here's the deal: gaming and metagaming, as terms, originate from outside RPGs, and most games aren't interested in making a distinction between rules that govern players and those that govern game worlds. From this perspective, "No PvP" and "roll d20 to attack" are both game rules and breaking either is metagaming in the sense colloquially known as "cheating".

There are different layers of rules, there you are completely right. I named several in my definition of GM agency, earlier. I just use more descriptive names than "meta" or "meta meta".

---


So.... a lot of games have rules just like that.

You mean hidden rules? Yes, you are right. In fact, D&D used to have an entire book of hidden rules: players weren't supposed to read the DMG. I thought I was clear in saying hidden rules aren't cheating; my aim was to give examples of all behaviours I named to make that distinction clear.

[KaussH]

You mean hidden rules? Yes, you are right. In fact, D&D used to have an entire book of hidden rules: players weren't supposed to read the DMG. I thought I was clear in saying hidden rules aren't cheating; my aim was to give examples of all behaviours I named to make that distinction clear.

Ahh sorry, thought you were equating that to cheating.

[Wizard_Lizard]

Clearly the idea of a hierarchal structure with the DM on top is both oppressive and outdated. We must therefore eliminate both the idea of the "Dungeon Master" and the "Player", and combine the two in order to create a better experience of RPG, I therefore propose we use Plot Points, from the DMG.

[Vahnavoi]

Wizard Lizard: there's a comic about that too. (http://existentialcomics.com/comic/195)

[Wizard_Lizard]

Wizard Lizard: there's a comic about that too. (http://existentialcomics.com/comic/195)

........ of course there is...

[icefractal]

Even when "rule 0" exists, I think it's possible to apply it honestly or dishonestly.

Use some Troll antagonists who have unusually good Will saves because they live in the psychically-charged ruins of an old Aboleth temple - sure, nothing wrong with homebrew content.

Decide mid-battle to give them that higher Will save because the fight is going "too easy"? That's fudging, and while it's ok in some groups it's not in others.

Give them the Will save bonus because you dislike the player of the Enchanter PC and want to make him look bad? That's ****ty GMing and "rule 0" doesn't excuse it in the slightest.

[Batcathat]

Eh, even when "rule 0" exists, I think it's possible to apply it honestly or dishonestly.

Use some Troll antagonists who have unusually good Will saves because they live in the psychically-charged ruins of an old Aboleth temple - sure, nothing wrong with homebrew content.

Decide mid-battle to give them that higher Will save because the fight is going "too easy"? That's fudging, and while it's ok in some groups it's not in others, and just because people were ok with homebrew doesn't mean they're ok with this.

Yeah, this is how I feel as well. A GM can create the world how they wish, but after that they should play fair. It's fine if they create a cave with ten dragons hiding inside, it's less fine if they have ten more dragons show up because the party was "supposed" to lose to the first ones. It's a matter of taste, of course, I'm sure some players are totally cool with GMs acting like that.

[PhoenixPhyre]

Even when "rule 0" exists, I think it's possible to apply it honestly or dishonestly.

Use some Troll antagonists who have unusually good Will saves because they live in the psychically-charged ruins of an old Aboleth temple - sure, nothing wrong with homebrew content.

Decide mid-battle to give them that higher Will save because the fight is going "too easy"? That's fudging, and while it's ok in some groups it's not in others.

Give them the Will save bonus because you dislike the player of the Enchanter PC and want to make him look bad? That's ****ty GMing and "rule 0" doesn't excuse it in the slightest.


Yeah, this is how I feel as well. A GM can create the world how they wish, but after that they should play fair. It's fine if they create a cave with ten dragons hiding inside, it's less fine if they have ten more dragons show up because the party was "supposed" to lose to the first ones. It's a matter of taste, of course, I'm sure some players are totally cool with GMs acting like that.

I totally agree with both of those. Because you're breaking the unspoken social rules that basically say "DMs should be acting in the best interest of the fun of the table as a whole".

Rule 0 doesn't say what changes (or motives for changes) are illegitimate, so as a matter of power, the DM isn't breaking any (system) rules. They're absolutely being a jerk and shouldn't do that. With great power comes great responsibility and all that. But we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that the power exists and that groups should be careful both in selecting DMs and watching for crap like this. Just like groups look out for player-side cheaters.