That's a difficult question, and I think it's more about the DM possessing the intuition to know what respects player agency, and what doesn't. In my opinion, DM NPCs should always be one step behind the players. They are reactive, not proactive. A player makes a move, the DM makes a move. It goes turn by turn. A DM should never make two moves in a row.DM GrumpyCat wrote:There's a very interesting conversation, and consideration, to be had here between:
'The Players should not ignore the presence of the NPCs'
and
'The NPCs should not be the ones to entirely dictate the actions of the players.' (inform yes, but not dictate)
Where this line lies I'm not entirely sure.
I'm going to use an example that perfectly illustrates my point. There's no ill-will, it's long past, and I'm not trying to name and shame any one DM. In Cordor circa June/July, there was some sort of tumult that involved magic getting out of control. In response, the Elite Guards stepped in and condemned the mages responsible and magic as a whole. That's great! NPCs reacted to the very loud and public actions of players, which makes sense. But things were taken a step further. I believe the King got involved, PCs were tried by DM NPCs, and then a DM NPC posted a proclamation on the board dictating how things were going to be (ie. magic is banned). That wasn't so great. The PC government of Cordor was not consulted or actually really involved in this in any meaningful way, and then with the magic ban, essentially their hand was being forced. That sucked, because having power that had been earned IG ignored or countermanded at the whim of supremely powerful NPCs breaches the player reality and sabotages that player's position. I feel like there were NPCs conjured up that could have been roles filled by players who deserved it.
What I believe should have happened was that things stopped at the NPC guards' condemnation, and the players were left to ruminate the gravity of what had happened, and do as they willed. The players expended their turn, then the DMs expended theirs. However, the DMs violated this equilibrium and took another turn. It felt like it wasn't: "well, these mages are getting a bit out of control, I'm going to make sure they understand their actions have consequences, because surely these Elite Guards are gonna have a problem here", but rather: "y'know what'd be cool? If magic got banned in Cordor".
Fortunately, the laws were being rewritten at the time, and the PC government, myself included, were able to have fun with this magic ban foisted on us, and use it for our own purposes. However, things got worse and worse. It got to the point where some of the upper echelon of Cordor considered if they were going to have to stage a revolution against these seriously tyrannical Elite guards.
edit: to expand a little. Let me draw a comparison to the Wharftown bombardment. It was clear that the primary motivating force wasn't "y'know, it'd be sick if Wharftown just got like, blown up or something" but rather, some (from the perspective of the admin team) things were happening IG that demanded the attention of important NPCs. The DMs made their turn -- making their proclamations. And then the players were left to respond. And it was very clear that the players had the important roles. It was fantastically handled all round, imo.
disclaimer: again, no ill-will with the specific example. If it's too particular, I'll happily edit it and find a more generalised situation to draw on.
---
I think this "players take a turn, DM's take a turn" idea is a little undeveloped, but it's a good starting point in discussing the relationship between players and DMs. When a DM takes two turns instead of waiting for the players to take theirs, it gives the impression that the DM is not so much interested in empowering the players and bringing the world to life as they are impatiently fast-tracking their carefully scripted headcanon.