@@sketchasaurrex4087 somewhere along the line, after CR hit the scene as far as I can tell, it seems that everyone suddenly decided the DM was some kind of entertainer hired for their amusement instead of another player who is also there enjoying a hobby. Some people ask "why would I ever pay for a GM?" You don't. You pay to buy is agency at the table because that's the only time a player should get to intrude on the GM's running of the world or the game.
@@drivinganddragons1818 "Paying to buy his agency" is a great, and more powerful, description of why you'd hire a GM, vs. merely buying a certain allocation of his time.
I have made this point myself more than once in game design/philosophy conversations. The GM is just as much a player as anyone else at the table. My biggest problem with the so-called "4D roleplaying" approach is that it practically discounts this fact, and almost requires a GM who is not only perfectly aware of every fact about the world and its relevance to the players' characters in real time, but is also able to perfectly communicate every necessary fact about the environment and situation to the PC who is acting, without any additional clarification necessary, the first time, every time. That same requirement on total and accurate communication also would apply to the players, in order to "perfectly" roleplay 4D, just in more limited scope. I will say, the idea of "the player doesn't call for rolls, the GM does" is intrinsic to the system being employed to play the game, and can vary quite substantially. Ten Candles for example, explicitly passes total narrative authority back and forth across the table based on the success of Conflict rolls. As the game progresses, the GM will more and more frequently win narrative control over the results of Conflicts, even if the player succeeds. Different systems have different levels of 'agency', that is, in game terms, narrative control, assigned to the players vs. the GM. Ironsworn doesn't even require a GM (although it CAN be played with a GM), giving a level of cooperative narrative control spread out across the table as dictated by the interpretation of the Oracle. Ron Edwards' "S/Lay w/Me" game is built on only two players who pass narrative agency back and forth between them, although the "me" player functions nominally as the GM and the "you" player is running more of a traditional PC role. PBTA games like Monster of the Week explicitly let the player choose what skill their character uses to address the situation (supported by their narration and description of using said skill), and although the GM theoretically still has veto power, they're encouraged to handle disconnects between what the player wants to do and what they can reasonably accomplish by adding a bonus or malus to the roll, rather than gainsaying the player's choice of skill entirely, specifically because the only way to level a skill is to actually fail a check using said skill and so the player may willingly choose to navigate a given situation sub-optimally. So, while I agree with just about everything you said in this video, I think there are some nuances based on the specific system or ruleset you're using that may change how agency is expressed between the players and the GM (if there is one).
@@TitterpigRancher system specific rules changes are a specific exception to a general rule. That said, even in a system where the player has nominal control over what skill to use, the GM determines WHEN the roll is needed. Even in say D&D, a player can say "I'd like to roll XYZ to attempt this" but the GM still says "ok, give me that toll"
@@drivinganddragons1818 That's a very relevant and accurate point. That said, have you played GMless or solo RPG systems? I'd be very interested in your take on them and whether you feel they constitute real RPGs.
@@TitterpigRancher the short answer is no. Solo games is just structured daydreaming or at most what we do when we invision a champaign through line. "GMless games" as I see them, are theater kid circle jerks for people who all want to be "players" and none want to be subject to the abuse they feel is reasonable to direct at GMs.
Once had a DM use my backstory in an adventure in such a way that didn't make any sense to me. I ended up effectively ignoring what he had planned as a big reveal for my character. He privately came to me afterward because of it. He wanted to know why I'd blown him off and if something was wrong. I told him I just assumed the villainous NPC was lying about knowing someone from my backstory because she would have died before this villain was even born, but he said the villain was telling the truth which I knew was impossible. We talked about it some more, and it turned out that the DM had remembered the events of my backstory backwards from how I wrote it. Someone I wrote as having died 80 years ago had died less than 10 years ago in his version of events. He'd planned more than just this one moment based off of faulty assumptions, so he asked if I would be fine switching the order of events in my backstory to not have to rewrite his plans. As the order of events didn't make any real difference on my end, I agreed. Even if I had been super invested into the order of events, it would have still been a jerk move to make him redo all that work when all I had to do was copy paste two paragraphs into a different order on a word document and remember a simple change.
@@CowCommando not a bad way to handle it, though I would have just moved forward. That person was important. Clearly not anymore, at least not important enough to follow the hook I set. That's part of agency. Nothing says your character has to act on back story elements written into the game.
@@drivinganddragons1818 It was his first time DMing for me, his typical DM, so I was trying to be extra forgiving and understanding to avoid discouraging him.
Couldn't have said it all any better myself!
@@UltraTtrpger I try to spit those hot truths
Everyone seems to forget that the GM has agency and is there for fun too.
@@sketchasaurrex4087 somewhere along the line, after CR hit the scene as far as I can tell, it seems that everyone suddenly decided the DM was some kind of entertainer hired for their amusement instead of another player who is also there enjoying a hobby.
Some people ask "why would I ever pay for a GM?"
You don't. You pay to buy is agency at the table because that's the only time a player should get to intrude on the GM's running of the world or the game.
@@drivinganddragons1818 "Paying to buy his agency" is a great, and more powerful, description of why you'd hire a GM, vs. merely buying a certain allocation of his time.
@@TitterpigRancher it's the best way to think about it. From both sides, players and paid GM
I have made this point myself more than once in game design/philosophy conversations. The GM is just as much a player as anyone else at the table. My biggest problem with the so-called "4D roleplaying" approach is that it practically discounts this fact, and almost requires a GM who is not only perfectly aware of every fact about the world and its relevance to the players' characters in real time, but is also able to perfectly communicate every necessary fact about the environment and situation to the PC who is acting, without any additional clarification necessary, the first time, every time. That same requirement on total and accurate communication also would apply to the players, in order to "perfectly" roleplay 4D, just in more limited scope.
I will say, the idea of "the player doesn't call for rolls, the GM does" is intrinsic to the system being employed to play the game, and can vary quite substantially. Ten Candles for example, explicitly passes total narrative authority back and forth across the table based on the success of Conflict rolls. As the game progresses, the GM will more and more frequently win narrative control over the results of Conflicts, even if the player succeeds. Different systems have different levels of 'agency', that is, in game terms, narrative control, assigned to the players vs. the GM. Ironsworn doesn't even require a GM (although it CAN be played with a GM), giving a level of cooperative narrative control spread out across the table as dictated by the interpretation of the Oracle. Ron Edwards' "S/Lay w/Me" game is built on only two players who pass narrative agency back and forth between them, although the "me" player functions nominally as the GM and the "you" player is running more of a traditional PC role. PBTA games like Monster of the Week explicitly let the player choose what skill their character uses to address the situation (supported by their narration and description of using said skill), and although the GM theoretically still has veto power, they're encouraged to handle disconnects between what the player wants to do and what they can reasonably accomplish by adding a bonus or malus to the roll, rather than gainsaying the player's choice of skill entirely, specifically because the only way to level a skill is to actually fail a check using said skill and so the player may willingly choose to navigate a given situation sub-optimally.
So, while I agree with just about everything you said in this video, I think there are some nuances based on the specific system or ruleset you're using that may change how agency is expressed between the players and the GM (if there is one).
@@TitterpigRancher system specific rules changes are a specific exception to a general rule.
That said, even in a system where the player has nominal control over what skill to use, the GM determines WHEN the roll is needed. Even in say D&D, a player can say "I'd like to roll XYZ to attempt this" but the GM still says "ok, give me that toll"
@@drivinganddragons1818 That's a very relevant and accurate point. That said, have you played GMless or solo RPG systems? I'd be very interested in your take on them and whether you feel they constitute real RPGs.
@@TitterpigRancher the short answer is no. Solo games is just structured daydreaming or at most what we do when we invision a champaign through line. "GMless games" as I see them, are theater kid circle jerks for people who all want to be "players" and none want to be subject to the abuse they feel is reasonable to direct at GMs.
My agency!!!
Guards that devilish rogue stole my agency 😂
@@BaseDnD it's my new grunge band: Stolen Agency
Once had a DM use my backstory in an adventure in such a way that didn't make any sense to me. I ended up effectively ignoring what he had planned as a big reveal for my character. He privately came to me afterward because of it. He wanted to know why I'd blown him off and if something was wrong. I told him I just assumed the villainous NPC was lying about knowing someone from my backstory because she would have died before this villain was even born, but he said the villain was telling the truth which I knew was impossible.
We talked about it some more, and it turned out that the DM had remembered the events of my backstory backwards from how I wrote it. Someone I wrote as having died 80 years ago had died less than 10 years ago in his version of events. He'd planned more than just this one moment based off of faulty assumptions, so he asked if I would be fine switching the order of events in my backstory to not have to rewrite his plans. As the order of events didn't make any real difference on my end, I agreed. Even if I had been super invested into the order of events, it would have still been a jerk move to make him redo all that work when all I had to do was copy paste two paragraphs into a different order on a word document and remember a simple change.
@@CowCommando not a bad way to handle it, though I would have just moved forward. That person was important. Clearly not anymore, at least not important enough to follow the hook I set.
That's part of agency. Nothing says your character has to act on back story elements written into the game.
@@drivinganddragons1818 It was his first time DMing for me, his typical DM, so I was trying to be extra forgiving and understanding to avoid discouraging him.