For those who haven't had the pleasure <g> of reading some of my other threads, let's just say I often GM for a group of traditional gamers, who happen to have a strong boardgaming streak. We like our politics, action, etc, and we're into the details. In that traditional setting, I understand where the GM derives fun: it's creating something, and watching that creation in action. There's most certainly a control-side to it as well.
What I don't get is where a Narrativist GM has any fun. From the sound of it, a good N-GM runs the world around the players (not just characters), often simply running their storylines as opposed to any of his own creation. It's a reactive role, where the players dictate the course of events, and the GM modifies the situation to correspond to the player's wishes.
To put it bluntly, the N-GM is the group bitch. "I want some treachery...go make me a treachery plot, bitch!" or "My character's growing tired of the princess...find me a maiden to come between us, bitch!" It really feels to me that a Narratavist group is a bunch of spoiled children who want to throw their imagination around, but put absolutely no effort into it, while the N-GM does all the boring "effort" stuff but gets to use no imagination.
Ok, I've painted an extreme, but I wanted you to see where I'm coming from. When you give up the control and power of creation, what's left for a N-GM but menial labor, and what fun is that?
-Jeff
P.S. I know this sounds contentious, and I guess I intended it that way in part. However, I really can't fathom why anybody would GM a group of narrativists.
You're confusing Narrativism with Author/Director Stance. By Narrativist GM/Player, you're saying that the majority of their decisions will be made based on the story (rather than, say, strategy or simluation). By saying the GM is giving up control, it means giving the Players power beyond Actor Stance.
Ook. Jargon over.
Basically, you're describing a subset of gaming that I've never experienced or read about. A game can provide control for both GM and Players, and support Narrativist decisions during play. See InSpectres or (my own) Metal Opera where there are explicit rules that cause either the GM
or the Player to take control. Both games facilitate Narrativist decisions, but the GM still has a job to do!
A Player can make decisions without any huge control over the narration and still make Narrativist decisions. For example (and these don't represent the ONLY decision available for a Player in the situation):
Quote from: In PlayGM: The golem rises from its shackles, snapping the chains and showering you with bits of metal and stone. It lumbers towards you, arms raised to strike you down.
Player: I sheath my sword and grab a torch from the wall.
Gamist reason: The Player knows that golems are highly susceptible to flame, and that he will get more reward by killing the golem than running.
Simulationist reason: The Player's Character is unafraid to die, and has heard from legends that golems fear fire.
Narrativist reason: A running theme throughout the scenario has been the ruinous nature of unchecked power. With fire fighting the golem, there is a great chance that fire, golem or both will get out of control.
Jeff,
I think Zak speaks to your primary misconception, which is that narrativism is all about player empowerment. It certainly can be, but so can gamism (and maybe even simulationism, although that hasn't been my experience). They're two different things entirely.
Even so, I'll address your question as though you had asked "How does a GM have fun in a game with a high degree of player empowerment?"
Your question is sort of the inverse of how I always felt about playing games until I discovered and implemented Authorial/Directorial stance into them. That is, I didn't often have fun unless I was GMing, feeling led around by the nose and generally insignificant both as a character within the game world, and as a player sitting a table supposedly engaging in some sort of recreational activity. Were my experiences as a player the result of just having bad GMs? I don't think so. Other players had fun, even when I did not, and I've been to enough cons to know that the way my friends and I played games was pretty much the way most people played them. Maybe you know what I'm talking about.
But this isn't a testimonial about how GNS made it possible for me to play games (although there is some truth in that statement). It's an answer to your question. That answer is that you react creatively to your players' decisions, sharing in the creation rather than imposing it. It's stressful, because suddenly you're playing the game too, reacting to things other people are doing, just like you did when you were the player reacting to the GM's stuff in all those other games you used to play. And so long as the distribution of power is still somewhat equal, the GM will have at least as much ability to influence and create as everyone else.
To reiterate Zak's point again, what we're talking about here is pervy narrativism at best. Vanilla narrativism does not necessarily hold Author/Director stance as a priority of play, and in very, very mild doses (say, real subtle use of FitM), it will be largely indistinguishable from "traditional" styles of play. This is my preferred type of game.
And just to be clear, although I largely rag on "traditional" roleplaying (i.e., that which does not encourage, either systematically or through GMing technique, player empowerment), I am not trying to marginalize it. I just don't happen to find it very enjoyable.
- Scott
I don't think it's a reasonable question. Why does anything make humans have fun? Play was probably used by evolution to learn without risk. Some people can have different goals. There is just as much challange in fuffilling a premise as running through dungeons with only one person capable of disarming traps, and some one you can't trust (theif).
Hi Jeff,
I think that the main point has already been adressed by Zak and Scott, but I'll throw my two cents in, anyway.
QuoteWhen you give up the control and power of creation ...
I think this misconception is why you don't get why or how it's fun. Because it's not about giving up, it's about
sharing the control and power of creation. All the fun come from that. The willingness to
co-create a story.
See, you still create. But the meaning of the whole act of creation change. Now all the players create, and they create in order to adress a premise (that's where the N-word enter the picture).
Hope it helps,
Fabrice.
[edited to fix typos]
First, thanks for the answers as is, especially:
QuoteYou're confusing Narrativism with Author/Director Stance.
and
Even so, I'll address your question as though you had asked "How does a GM have fun in a game with a high degree of player empowerment?"
and others...
I did miss the distinction, so I've learned something.
Quote...feeling led around by the nose and generally insignificant both as a character within the game world,..
Ok, but I don't believe traditional games enforce "insignificance". I've typically run games from the following premise: there is a world, and it's largely on automatic. As it exists, the bad guys are going to win unless the good guys do something about it. The only changes to the world, once it's in motion, come from either a) the player's actions, or b) the actions of a few major NPCs, all the result of clearly defined motivations.
The point is that the players still only have control over their characters, but that control is complete and it affects the world in a meaningful way. All w/o giving up any control as the GM.
QuoteBecause it's not about giving up, it's about sharing the control and power of creation. All the fun come from that. The willingness to co-create a story.
I don't see this. First, I see controlling elements of the story as a zero-sum situation. There's a little play at the margins, where some good ideas can come in and add to the story w/o altering the basics, but in the end any sharing of control is diminishing that control, and that represents a fundamental loss of what the GM can do. It still feels to me that the players have grabbed the few things the GM could do, and left the GM as a steward, nothing more.
QuoteYour question is sort of the inverse of how I always felt about playing games until I discovered and implemented Authorial/Directorial stance into them.
I fully understand that a player will feel benefit from the situation. What I'm missing is where the GM benefits.
Let me try a different tack: the players have sole control over their characters, and only do as much work in general as they wish to. The GM now has sole control over nothing, but is responsible for all the work that the players don't want to do. This sounds like an unbalanced relationship to me, and no one here has yet shown me differently.
-Jeff
Quote from: JaifLet me try a different tack: the players have sole control over their characters, and only do as much work in general as they wish to. The GM now has sole control over nothing, but is responsible for all the work that the players don't want to do. This sounds like an unbalanced relationship to me, and no one here has yet shown me differently.
I don't get it. If the Players control their characters, and the GM controls nothing, who's controlling the environment? The NPCs?
Again, you're describing a situation that I don't think exists. No one's shown you differently because there's no games (that I've seen) that explicitly ignore the fundamentals of gaming (i.e.,
somebody's got to be able to describe things outside of the PCs). Am I reading your statement wrong? Or do you have any examples of games that contain this dynamic?
It's not simply a matter of control, it's sole control. Let's summarize this:
Control
Players: Sole control over their characters, direct influence over everything else.
GM: Sole control over nothing, direct influence over everything but the PCs.
Responsibility
Players: Responsible only for their characters.
GM: Responsible for all matters outside the characters.
When one person has limited power but large amounts of responsibility, you have an unbalanced situation. This really sounds like a relationship fated to end poorly, to me.
However, from all appearances people are playing these games, which means that someone, somewhere is actually GMing those games. I'm curious what those GMs are deriving from the games.
-Jeff
Your summary is incorrect Jaif...I'd agree with you that this sort of play would be hugely dysfunctional.
Rather consider this:
Control
Player A: primary control over character A, input into everything else including input on Player B's character. What form the input takes is largely the Vanilla / Pervy distinction made above.
Player B: primary control over character B, input into everything else including input on Player A's character, [Note the distinction between input and control is intentional]
GM: Primary control over everything else, just as in any game, only now recieving input from players. Again how radical this input is depends on the flavor of narrative you're talking about.
Responsibility:
Player A: Responsible for proactively moving his character's kicker forward, and responding to GM Bangs in a way that maintains game focus on Premise.
Player B: Ditto
GM: Responsible for proactively providing bangs suitable for the characters to display their protagonism and working with the players (again depending on flavor) to maintain focus on premise.
However I will say this. If you are a control freak, and the biggest rush you get out of being game master is that you get to play god (and I'm not saying that's a bad thing)...than Narrative play (which requires less dictation and more collaboration) may not be for you.
Okay, there's the meat of it. Control & Responsibility. Thing is, in the games I've played (where Players go beyond Actor Stance) it turns into:
Control:
Players - Control over their PCs (though at times, the mechanics control that), sometimes control over environment/NPCs
GM - Control over environment/NPCs
Both - Offer suggestions & comments to each other during play to come to the most satisfying result.
Responsibility:
Players - Responsible for their PCs. During points of high Control, responsible for narrating within the limits of the social contract.
GM - Responsible for the environment/NPCs until a Player gets higher Control. Also responsible for narrating with the social Contract.
Social Contract:
This is key to Control/Responsibility. Before the game starts, everyone should agree on what are acceptable outcomes, so you don't have a clown ruin a serious group, or a brooding antagonist PC ruin a light-hearted game. Make sure you all talk about what's within reason for results.
Jaif,
This is why what your describing is a non-situation. A game that gives Players explicit control only gives it at certain times. It's limited. Even then, the narrating participant (GM or Player) gets a peanut gallery who can offer suggestions, advice and so on. And outcomes are debated if they don't follow the shared vision.
At least, this is how my gaming works out when we have explicit Player Control. Are you describing something else? If so, I haven't seen or heard of it and I'll bow out of this discussion.
Hi Jeff,
QuoteGM: Sole control over nothing, direct influence over everything but the PCs.
How's that ? Can you explain further ? How is it a problem ?
QuotePlayers: Responsible only for their characters.
Here I have to disagree. In the games you mention, the player is as much responsible as the gm for the "quality" of play. If The player used directorial power poorly, is that the gm responsability ? Nope. The player ruined the fun of everyone, gm's fault ? Nope again.
Increased authorial power comes with increased responsibility.
I think that you place too much a difference between gm and players. Like they're adversarial or something. In these games, the gm only has a
different responsibility from the players, not more.
Fabrice.
Hey Jeff,
Quote from: JaifIt's not simply a matter of control, it's sole control. Let's summarize this:
ControlPlayers: Sole control over their characters, direct influence over everything else.
GM: Sole control over nothing, direct influence over everything but the PCs.[/list:u]
ResponsibilityPlayers: Responsible only for their characters.
GM: Responsible for all matters outside the characters.[/list:u]When one person has limited power but large amounts of responsibility, you have an unbalanced situation. This really sounds like a relationship fated to end poorly, to me.
However, from all appearances people are playing these games, which means that someone, somewhere is actually GMing those games. I'm curious what those GMs are deriving from the games.
The problem here is that you're looking at it from an 'all-or-nothing' point of view. I've had a lot of time thinking about issues related to this in working out the Proprietorship issues with
Scattershot (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=22).
In a
Gamemasterful sharing (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1662) game, using
Scattershot (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewforum.php?f=22), player
do have sole control over their characters, but don't practice "direct influence" over
everything else, they practice direct influence over only those things
they have introduced. The things which become their proprietorship.
The same goes for the gamemaster; he has sole control over the things
he introduces (frequently the major non-player characters) and "direct influence" over the same. Now there are things considered 'community property' like simple aspects of setting and such, but when these are introduced the person introducing them makes it known that they have little emotional attachment to them allowing everyone "direct influence" over them (unless someone chooses to adopt the proprietorship later).
In a nutshell, proprietorship means that thing in question is
yours, no one can exert "direct influence" over it without your explicit or tacit approval. This means that everyone has "sole control" and 'directly influences'
something; no one is 'left out.'
While it is true that the gamemaster is "responsible" to provide things players ask for, it doesn't usually work that way (and there's absolutely no reason the gamemaster can require players to create things too). If a player wants a 'new girl,' they make her up and are her proprietor; if they want the gamemaster to be her proprietor, they have to
ask. None of this, "
You do it," stuff.
One of the reasons this tends to be rare is that when they give something to the gamemaster, they can expect it to be used to generate 'complications.' If the gamemaster is generating the complications, then the player is not 'in control' of that 'story-line.' Since you are talking about the players being 'in control' of their own 'story-lines,' they would have to remain the proprietor for their 'stuff.' Thus they don't 'pass things over' or 'force the gamemaster' to do things.
How does that sound?
Fang Langford
Hi Jeff,
This may be an entirely indigestible wad of material to suggest that you read, but on the off-chance that you're interested ...
A while ago, I ran a mock game set-up for Sorcerer in order to help some folks who had exactly the same concerns that you're describing. It ended up being four threads.
To Tor, Jesse, and Paul (http://indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=753)
Art-Deco Melodrama (http://indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=770)
Art-Deco Melodrama, Part 2 (http://indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=828)
Art-Deco Melodrama - the final chapter (http://indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=876)
Please understand that I am not suggesting that you play this way, or that anyone "should" play this way. I'm directing your attention to it because a lot of the same concerns were being voiced by Jesse and Tor.
Best,
Ron
A few things:
Ron, thanks for the references. I'm skimming now as time permits.
Fang, that was excellent. In particular:
QuoteThis means that everyone has "sole control" and 'directly influences' something; no one is 'left out.'
and
If a player wants a 'new girl,' they make her up and are her proprietor; if they want the gamemaster to be her proprietor, they have to ask. None of this, "You do it," stuff.
This really help clears some things up.
Sorry I can't respond to everything in the thread, but thanks for the thoughts on the matter.
A little tangent to a small example that shows where some of this is leading:
In the past, I ran a stock Amber game. At one point, I needed a convient meeting point for the characters, and came up with an Inn in an old-west flavored shadow. The Inn, for whatever reason, had a picture of a Unicorn on it, and that's what attracted everyone in the first place. In my head, I was done. A meeting point, now lets move on.
But no, the players for whatever reason became very attached to thing. "Who owns it? What kind of people frequent the place? Is it in a town, or just a few buildings, or what? Are any of the serving waitresses do-able?" The place suddenly became a fair amount of detail work that frankly annoyed me a bit, mostly because people weren't really doing anything there. Now though, I think I can see how to handle this better in the future. Basically, let them make up those, and just tell them when they've hit some limit.
Again, good stuff all, thanks.
-Jeff
Quote from: little nickyHi Jeff,
I think that you place too much a difference between gm and players. Like they're adversarial or something. In these games, the gm only has a different responsibility from the players, not more.
I would fear that they become decreasingly distinct as control is shared - both are attempting/obliged to make descriptions about the environment.
I think Jaif's description summed up my perspective pretty well too, better than I have yet been able to express it. Different strokes 'n all.
Hey Jeff-
I think that I get what you're saying, oddly. I don't know if I have an answer, but my impression is that, in some ways, you're on to something.
As I posted in Actual Play we played InSpectres the other night. It was a blast, but not really the kind of thing that I get my real "gaming fix" out of. It was a diversion, not serious gaming. Now, I'm not saying that it couldn't be...
As GM, though, I felt lost. I'm sure that a lot of practice will help, but I did feel that I had essentially no power, not even over small elements of the story, as a Confessional or high player roll could at any time send things a radically different way. The chaos made it fun, yes, and it was kinda neat to play 110% improv GM, but in the end
QuoteI
felt railroaded, as no decision I made mattered for longer than a few moments.
I can see the fun in being a player in such a campaign (you certainly don't need a tremedously skilled GM--just one that's willing to fill in the gaps...the InSpectres manual even says that you practically don't need a GM to play the game--so, naturally, I chaffed at me "unneededness" as GM. I think a lot of us GM to feel important. I think that's why many of us game at all), but by the same note I think that it removes a lot of intensity from play...is it creative and exciting (especially for the players)? Yes. Is it truly intense, however...no. Part of intensity is having things just on the edge of out of control in a situation that matters. More traditional play has an easier time facillitating that than heavy Director-stance play (ala InSpectres). I like being a player in both types, but I prefer GMing more old-school.
I think a solution might be to use less directorial power for your players, but still use some. TROS does that some with the SAs (so I'm told...*grin*), and other games do it in other ways. Sorcer also seems to have a pretty balance approach to it.
So am I onto what you're saying, or way off?
Jake
Quote from: JaifBut no, the players for whatever reason became very attached to thing. "Who owns it? What kind of people frequent the place? Is it in a town, or just a few buildings, or what? Are any of the serving waitresses do-able?" The place suddenly became a fair amount of detail work that frankly annoyed me a bit, mostly because people weren't really doing anything there. Now though, I think I can see how to handle this better in the future. Basically, let them make up those, and just tell them when they've hit some limit.
Yeah, in a lot of ways, sharing power can make the GM's job EASIER. It also means that the GM isn't the only one with a vested interest in helping maintain continuity, and isn't the only one players expect to keep it all straight for them.
As for Jakes comments above, there are certainly ways to incorporate the concepts of Narrative play without using the more radical notions of giving players so much free reign.
Quotea good N-GM runs the world around the players (not just characters), often simply running their storylines as opposed to any of his own creation. It's a reactive role, where the players dictate the course of events, and the GM modifies the situation to correspond to the player's wishes.
I believe your idea is inherently flawed in that it assumes a GM will not have fun
unless they maintain control -- ie: ownership -- of something (ie: the world or the NPCs). In other words, it assumes enjoyment is obtained from control and can only be obtained from control.
Yes, one who desires (near) complete control and ownership of an item will not find a situation where they share their power or ownership over that item with someone else to be enjoyable.
If you are scratching your head, therein lies the problem: "How can you have fun unless X?" Your assumption that X is necessary to have fun, when it is not.
For example, you have no control over a movie, a novel or a television show, yet they are enjoyable, they are entertaining. Of course gaming and media are two different things, so to make an example of myself: I personally don't care because it isn't my world.
I, as GM, am there to facillitate play, to encourage the players to explore their characters and build intersting stories. If I'm told, "I want a situation with a maiden to rescue. Make me one, bitch!" then I do it, and I get my kicks from watching what happens. That is, I get to watch the story unfold. That's FUN. Such play is a great deal like co-writing a novel.
Quote"I want some treachery...go make me a treachery plot, bitch!" or "My character's growing tired of the princess...find me a maiden to come between us, bitch!"
Making and running characters for a treachery plot wouldn't be fun?
Creating and running a maiden interfering with someone's love life wouldn't be fun?
But you seem pointed at the extreme example of the GM just doing all the work and have no control. This, of course, confuses me: how can the GM do the work and have no control?
And if it could happen, why would the group even need a GM?
What sort of work would the GM even be doing?
If the players have complete control, there's nothing left for the GM to do, so the situation simply couldn't occur...he couldn't have all the responsibility and none of the fun.
The players state, "I want to explore the Doomed Caverns and let's explore the theme of betrayal and redemption!" So the GM creates the Doomed Caverns and its environments, describing them as the players encounter them.
If the players also have control over the environment of the caverns and the situations within, well, once again, of what use is the GM? He doesn't have to describe or create the environment anymore, since the players are doing so, thus he doesn't have more work or responsibility. Your proposed situation is thus an impossibility.
In fact, your examples sound like traditional gaming to me: players say, "Let's slay a dragon!" so the characters go out and find a dragon, one which the GM has created to fulfill that desire.
Therein seems the crux of the issue, I believe: You state the GM has his fun by running the characters through his creation, his plot, and seem to indicae that the players can not have any input beyond that of their own character's actions in the world.
To turn that question around, "Where's the fun for the players? They have to follow a more-or-less set script and can't deviate, except at pre-plotted junctures!"
You don't get any input into the world at all, except what you can manage with your character, and even then the GM is still guiding things so that what he wants to happen, happens. How do these players have any fun?
Well, I'm being slightly facetious, but you see my point.
In games where players have more situational control than traditional, plotted games, the GM still describes the world, and controls the NPCs to an extent -- the players just help co-write the story, it isn't just the GM and improvisational acting. Keep in mind that this is cooperative, not adversarial, gaming, where the players and GM are one unit, not two. They, together, are creating a story.
To continue, you state:
QuoteWhen you give up the control and power of creation, what's left for a N-GM but menial labor, and what fun is that?
Think about it this way: isn't this like asking an actor, "Well, all you get to do is follow a script, what fun is that?"
Yet traditional gaming, where the GM controls everything, maintains exactly this style of gaming, minus the script for the players: the GM, like the director or script-writer, is God, his plot is law, and the players only get to act out the parts they've taken within the context of that plot.
Yes, they have more freedom than an actor, but they are still acting within the world-context of the GM.
Quoteno effort into it, while the N-GM does all the boring "effort" stuff but gets to use no imagination.
Two assumptions here are flawed: that such players put no effort into their imaginations, and that the GM does not get to use her imagination.
Playing a character and developing interesting situations for them to get into requires imagination. So both player and GM use their imagination.
However, see my above question about how a GM could put in all the effort and not have any control or use his imagination -- it is simply impossible for such a situation to exist, because even if the GM is following directions from the players, he is using his imagination.
I think that there is a little (but only a little) of "director stance good, traditional GMing bad" going on in here. There are a few flaws in this, though.
First, greyorm says:
QuoteFor example, you have no control over a movie, a novel or a television show, yet they are enjoyable, they are entertaining. Of course gaming and media are two different things, so to make an example of myself: I personally don't care because it isn't my world.
Showing that the GM can have fun if he's not in control. Then he states that the players can't have fun if they aren't in conrol.
I
am not flaming or trying to start anything, but pointing out that there is a double standard being globally applied here, based on a set of assumptions that have come to characterize the Forge's Indie gaming scene.
I think Contracycle hit it on the head to some degree with his "different strokes" statement. Directorial play isn't for everyone. In my case it isn't for me most of the time, although I do like to use a bit of it in play (not as much as the "extreme" case that is being discussed here). I loved playing InSpectres, which I think I let get over-directorial looking back, but it wasn't as much fun or as rewarding as a well-done traditional game. Easier to do? Absolutely. It was a breeze. Did I get off on it in the long-term-keep-me-up-at-night-thinking-about-the-upcoming-game sense? Not at all.
I'm gonna stick my neck out a little here, but I think that unless you're dealing with a special kind of group--one that is comprised of all exceptions--it will be easier to run a good directorial game, but harder to run an excellent one. More traditional play, while in many ways more challenging, also offers larger rewards (but at, perhaps, a smaller percentage of the time).
Jake
Jeff,
I don't get your assumption that "reacting to player stories" is (a) boring, and/or (b) somehow less of an imaginative effort. As GM, you must still add interesting twists, synthesize player story efforts with your own ideas and fit them into the game world (which may be your own creation if you aren't using a pre-generated environment), play NPC's, describe most outcomes, facilitate the players getting center stage, etc., etc. In short, you still do most, if not all, of what you were doing, and I'd argue that in shared control games, you have to be even more on your imaginative toes.
Going a bit further, I dispute the underlying proposition that narrativist-oriented GM's are more reactive than GM's in any other style of play. Others have pointed out the flaws in this line of reasoning, so I'll just add my voice to theirs. If there's anything I would focus on deconstructing, it's the linkage of:
GM control = GM proactive = more serious creative GM challenge = more satisfying for GM
The contrast, of course is:
Shared control = GM reactive = less serious creative GM challenge = less satisfying for GM
For some people, this relationship may hold true, and it may do so in your case, but it's not necessarily true.
I suggest you might try running a session of The Pool with your group just to see how it feels. It will very likely not be your cup of tea, but it's easy entry and a very good look at how shared control can work.
Best,
Blake
Quote from: JaifFang, that was excellent. In particular:
Quote from: Le JoueurThis means that everyone has "sole control" and 'directly influences' something; no one is 'left out.'
and
If a player wants a 'new girl,' they make her up and are her proprietor; if they want the gamemaster to be her proprietor, they have to ask. None of this, "You do it," stuff.
This really help clears some things up.
In the past, I ran a stock Amber game. At one point, I needed a convient meeting point for the characters, and came up with an Inn in an old-west flavored shadow. The Inn, for whatever reason, had a picture of a Unicorn on it, and that's what attracted everyone in the first place. In my head, I was done. A meeting point, now lets move on.
But no, the players for whatever reason became very attached to thing. "Who owns it? What kind of people frequent the place? Is it in a town, or just a few buildings, or what? Are any of the serving waitresses do-able?" The place suddenly became a fair amount of detail work that frankly annoyed me a bit, mostly because people weren't really doing anything there. Now though, I think I can see how to handle this better in the future. Basically, let them make up those, and just tell them when they've hit some limit.
That limit, I think, should not be a 'hard limit,' as in 'they only get to make
this much stuff up. That would fly in the face of the sharing being suggested. The limit should be 'hey I didn't agree to handle that.' Make sure that all the player generated detail doesn't harbor a secret, 'the gamemaster has to run this stuff,' mandate. As long as the 'connections' created by its existence lead either 'back to it' or to something belonging to a player, everything can just keep on growing. Standard proprietary stuff, you can't be compelled to be the proprietor for anything. (Conversely, becareful what you create; you'll be the proprietor.)
Oh, and before I forget; all the Scattershot stuff above (which is meant only as an example of 'how it can be done') is not only for Narrativist play but potentially most any circumstances (just exceptionally
Gamemasterful sharing (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1662) ). Scattershot gets pretty Narrativist when you pull up the Techniques
specifically for Gamemasterful sharing (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1662) with a
Self-Conscious, Auteur (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1662) approach. Just wanted to make that clear; things can be a little complicated when describing a game founded on the principles of
Transition (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=11888#11888).
Fang Langford
p. s. Oh yeah, Thanks!
Jake, let me defend myself here quick by noting that my comments about traditional games not being fun were not meant as my serious stance on the issue -- they were meant to look at the situation in question in reverse.
That the reversed situation is blatantly absurd to both of us (ie: the statement that players can't have fun in traditional games) should tell you why I found the supposition that lack of GM control equated a lack of fun similarly absurd for the same reasons.
Further, you'll note within the post, directly after the statements about the lack of traditional player fun, I stated I was being facetious. This, I would have hoped, would have been a dead giveaway as to my intentions with my statements, but I apologize for the confusion nonetheless.
So no, there is no double-standard going on here, not from me at any rate, nor any assumptions (certainly none that have "come to characterize the Indie gaming scene").
I hope that clarifies the nature my post for you (?)
Quote from: contracycleI would fear that they become decreasingly distinct as control is shared - both are attempting/obliged to make descriptions about the environment.
Yes, in the end you get play like Vincent's game, or Scattershot GMful, or play of Universalis in which all participants have the same responsibilities. It's a perfectly viable power division, I assure you. OTOH, I can understand if it's not for everyone.
Jeff, to invoke the band metaphor, you like Symphony (with a director and musicians who play their parts), and there are others who like Improv Jazz (with a bass player keeping the rhythm, and the other players riffing every which way). Trying to explain why someone likes one over the other is likely to be futile, they just do. Really they are very similar. I can only suggest trying it to see why. If it's too distasteful, then you may never understand. That's OK, too, we only ask that you believe us when we say we like Jazz.
Oh, and about the GM-bitch thing. Try replacing the term Narrativist with Simulationist, and reversing the terms GM and players. This will give you an idea of what it sounds like to those on the recieving end. I am amongst the most staunch supporters of Simulationism on this forum. I've had to defend Simulationism from exactly the same sort of attack before. I do not support Narrativism over Simulationism, I support both (and Gamism as well).
Mike
Whoa, wild thread here. :P
I'll speak from the view point of someone who's gotten to enjoy both levels of directorial power. As a GM, I love coming up with crazy ass plots and characters and "traumatizing" my players. I also love it when the players do the unexpected, so that the game becomes unpredictable.
My first serious experience with it was playtesting Forgotten Fist, where I simply stated that players always narrate. Trying it out made a big difference, and I realized what a control freak I was as a GM. What effectively happens when directorial power goes to the players is that the GM now only needs to focus on his/her "characters"(and yes, I include the environment as a character). It no longer was my story, it was our story.
After that, I got real stuck on directorial power being shared. Then Clinton introduced me to scene framing for the first time, and that, I believe is the most awesome GM's Tool ever made(and much thanks to Paul for bringing up on the Forge). With that, I'm open to either sort of game, although I'm really in favor of letting players come up with the details and extras no matter how vanilla the game.
Chris
Fang,
The limit I was talking about is when they tread on someone else's property. If my big addition to the Amber campaign is a horde of unstoppable dragons invading all of shadow (etc, use your imagination), then I'd stop the players from designing in the traveller who tells them how to build an "anti-dragon ray gun".
greyform,
QuoteI believe your idea is inherently flawed in that it assumes a GM will not have fun unless they maintain control -- ie: ownership -- of something (ie: the world or the NPCs).
We fundamentally disagree. I believe issue of control are vital in social settings. When we're talking about group storytelling, I think the main point is having parts of the story that's "yours". For the players, it's the characters, but for the GM, it's not as obvious.
QuoteFor example, you have no control over a movie, a novel or a television show, yet they are enjoyable, they are entertaining.
I don't do any work either. I just watch or read. Fundamentally different situation.
QuoteTo turn that question around, "Where's the fun for the players? They have to follow a more-or-less set script and can't deviate, except at pre-plotted junctures!"
You don't get any input into the world at all, except what you can manage with your character, and even then the GM is still guiding things so that what he wants to happen, happens. How do these players have any fun?
Well, I'm being slightly facetious, but you see my point.
In that situation, I agree. If the script dictates the player's actions, then the control is lost in another sense. As a GM, as a rule, I only script "what would happen if the PCs didn't exist". If the characters take action to interfere, of course the situation changes. Furthermore, I'm likely to tailor the situations so the PCs have a measurable chance to affect them, and give clear warning signs about areas truly beyond their control (e.g. everybody knows Cap's shield is unbreakable; it shouldn't be a surprise.)
It's a balance, to be sure, but I don't think it's anything people who read this board are unfamiliar with, so I won't explore further.
Jake,
Yes, we are in tune. However, Fang & Ron have shown me some light; there's no reason that a GM can't share a little control and still have clearly defined limits, like you said.
-Jeff
Quote from: Blake HutchinsIf there's anything I would focus on deconstructing, it's the linkage of:GM control = GM proactive = more serious creative GM challenge = more satisfying for GM[/list:u]The contrast, of course is:Shared control = GM reactive = less serious creative GM challenge = less satisfying for GM[/list:u]For some people, this relationship may hold true, and it may do so in your case, but it's not necessarily true.
I'm a little worried about the implied assumptions here (pretty much the fact that there are only
two chains). I mean, when I run, it's pretty much "shared control = GM proactive" and I have a blast (I count less singular responsibility to things like continuity, genre, and tension escalation highly.) And one of my favorite gamemasters practiced full-on "GM control = GM reactive," I might say his was the posterchild for Exploration of Setting Simulationism.
Then there's the "reactive = less serious...challenge"/"proactive = more serious...challenge" linkage, because in my experience its been the opposite (not to say that these aren't possible, simply that they don't seem the intuitively
the whole of the picture). I'm not even going to point out how the "creative challenge = satisfying" relationship doesn't add up; I don't even see any connection between how serious a challenge is and how satisfying it turns out to be.
Unless that was what you were saying....
whoops
Fang Langford
Hi Fang,
I think that Blake was indeed presenting those two sets of associations specifically to say that they are not, actually, the only two sets of options out there.
I also think that perhaps it's time to review my old metaphor of "the GM as bass player," but I can't bring myself to dig up the old threads.
Jesse Burneko!! Is that essay of yours available somewhere? I seem to remember you providing a link to it at some point. Seems to me that it's just what Jeff wanted to see, and coming from you in particular, it might carry more weight.
Best,
Ron
Hey Jeff,
I realize this is a bit of a side issue, but...
Quote from: JaifThe limit I was talking about is when they tread on someone else's property. If my big addition to the Amber campaign is a horde of unstoppable dragons invading all of shadow (etc, use your imagination), then I'd stop the players from designing in the traveller who tells them how to build an "anti-dragon ray gun".
Actually, I anticipated that for Scattershot too. Using the
Sine Qua Non Technique (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2009), if you designate those dragons as
unstoppable, then by definition (and agreement) no one will create a deus ex machina that can stop them. You see a
Sine Qua Non (http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2009), in its final stages, is negotiated with the group because of situations like this.
It's the old 'unstoppable force' vs. 'immovable object' thing. You can't have both in the same universe because the definition of one eliminates the possibility of the other.
Fang Langford
Quote from: Ron Edwards
Jesse Burneko!! Is that essay of yours available somewhere? I seem to remember you providing a link to it at some point. Seems to me that it's just what Jeff wanted to see, and coming from you in particular, it might carry more weight.
Well, the first draft of my essay is still available here:
http://www.geocities.com/devil_bunnys/mindset.html
I'd like to point out that it IS still the first draft. Currently, I'm working on my third draft.
Hope it's useful none the less.
Jesse
greyorm-
I see what you're saying, and yes, it's clearer now. Sorry if I came off a bit strong. I'm still trying to get used to forum-speech and what not.
Jeff-
Glad to see that I read you right. Again, let me say that I actually love the idea of directorial stance (I'm tinkering with a game design ala George Lucas right now, when I'm at work and not working on the Riddle). I think that it is inherently a bit silly, though, especially if not properly hemmed. I think that, with the right controls (be it game rules or social contract) that certain-sized doses of "pure" directorial stance could be an amazing in-game tool. As it stands now, my tried-and-true functional take on Director stance is really more along the lines of pre-play (e.g. Kickers, Spiritual Attributes, etc.) and pretty minor in-game player suggestion.
What I agree on is that too much directorial stance = a lonely, useless GM. I, like many GMs, love to craft and mold my world around my players. They are the protagonists, but I love the sense of wonder that RPGs invoke as you get to wander around in someone else's imaginary world--a world that you get to interact with! Too much directorial stance keeps that from being a possibility, and removes a great deal of the basic orderliness that makes "serious" games possible. I think that's where a lot of the Lots of Direct. Stance = Silliness and Chaos issue comes in.
Jake
Hey, a quick note to say Ron's on the money, as was Fang's "Whoops." My main point was to point at the line of reasoning I saw developed in Jeff's post. It's not my thinking, and it's certainly not meant to be exclusive.
Best,
Blake
QuoteWhat I agree on is that too much directorial stance = a lonely, useless GM.
Yeah, and I tend to wonder how much is "too much". It seems to me that this is a point easily reached once players start dabbling outside of their characters. There's only so much time in a game session, and a few sharp twists is going to confine the GM to reaction mode pretty quickly.
I do have to ask - are any of you out there regular GMs of campaigns where the players have a large amount of directoral control? I'm not talking one-shots here, I'm talking at least (let's make up a number) once a month sessions in a regular campaign.
If so, can you give me your impressions, specifically, what parts for you are fun?
-Jeff
Quote from: Jaif
If so, can you give me your impressions, specifically, what parts for you are fun?
I'm sure there are a few folks who can chime in here.
Perhaps you can provide the opposite side with what specifically you don't think is fun.
There seems to be a "GM loses total control = not fun" theme going through your posts that I'm not sure if you intend it to be there or what it is that has you fearful that shared power = not fun for GM.
Perhaps if you start by cataloging what you find fun about being a GM and then noting which of those things you're afraid you'll miss...
I fully agree with the sentiment that shared power is not everyones cup of tea (not even every players) but I've never heard it phrased as being not "fun" before.
Quote from: JaifI do have to ask - are any of you out there regular GMs of campaigns where the players have a large amount of directoral control? I'm not talking one-shots here, I'm talking at least (let's make up a number) once a month sessions in a regular campaign.
Have you read the Freeform thread yet? Lots of people play with no rules at all regarding who can create what, or just ones like "don't mess with anyone elses characters". This works just fine, usually nobody has a problem, and for the most part it's fun. I think these people cover your request for descriptions of regular heavy directorial play best; Lance? Henry?
On the other end of the spectrum I am aware of people who play with a GM who has almost total power, including playing the player's characters for them, essentially, making them next to spectators. And you know what? They have fun too, players and GMs.
I can see no point at which a particular division of power is inherently more fun than another. Sure for individuals, there may be a level at which the division is optimal. But
a priori, I don't believe that any level is superior to any other.
Mike
Hello Jeff,
I don't know if my game counts as having a LOT of Director Stance but in general I encourage my players to create things that are either natural extensions of their environment or help color and enhance the immediate scene.
For example, I have no problem if a player wants to go visit a cousin that they've never mentioned to me before. I'm simply asking them for details about this cousin and then roleplay the new-NPC as if I'd created him myself using the player's descriptions as guideline. Relatives and such are a natural extention of a character concept. Anything that is a natural extention of the character concept the players are free to introduce.
Also, I don't get myself boged down in the technical details of scenes. I don't draw maps and I don't use minitures for fights. If a player wants to pull a fire hose off the wall and hose down the enemy. I say, GO FOR IT. If the player wants to have something at his disposal or whatever in the current environment and it isn't TOO far fetched that it would be there, then I don't sweat the details.
My players still haven't really gotten used to this idea, yet. Just yesterday they wanted to steal some survalience equipment from some kind of electronic store. "I said, okay." They then proceeded to outline in great gory detail for me:
A) How they did this.
B) What EXACTLY they were taking. Asking me for permission after each and every single item.
This kind of stuff bores me to tears. Survaillence equipment. Camera, radios, walkie-talkies, etc, etc, etc, I get it. Move on. I'm not going to nit pick over the details.
Now usually when I tell people this they tell me I'm making it too "easy" on the players. But the logistics of objective achievement aren't what my games are about. At least they ceased to be as soon as I learned about this much more interesting thing called a Narrativist Premise. Premise, really boils down to the game being about moral and ethical dillemas.
I'm not interested in whether the players can find out X information and uncover this fiendish plot and defeat that particular villain. My games are WAY WAY greyer than that. In fact by making sure the players have all the resources and what not at their disposal, serves two functions.
1) It fulfills the player's fantasies about whatever it is they're thinking about. In the case of yesterday's game it was being spy like and hanging out in vans watching the "bad guys" undetected ala Sneakers.
2) It frees me up to focus on making the information gained through and consequences of actions taken by the players have heavy dramatic punch. I WANT them to have the information they're trying to get because that information is only going to make their further choices more difficult form a moral or ethical stand-point.
In my games there may very well be a villain with a fiendish plot to thwart however, doing so doesn't solve the PCs problems.
Example,
I'm currently running Werewolf for my group. I don't know how familiar you are with the game but there's this concept of the Kinfolk. Kinfolk are humans who carry the Werewolf "gene" but are not Werewolves themselves. I guess you could say the major "villain" in my game is a company called Magadon. Magadon has invented a virus that infects kinfolk and insures that any offspring they have will turn into insane, evil Black Spiral Werewolves.
I don't care HOW they find out about this virus or what they choose to do about Magadon. I'm assuming at some point their will be a raid or a crackdown or something. What happens to Magadon and it's fiendish plot really aren't what interests me. The players can use ALL the director stance they want achieveing these "Search and Destroy" elements of the game. It yeilds fun actions sequences and fulfiles the player's "Badass" fantasies. What really interests me are these points:
1) Magadon has already bred 8 of these infected Werewolves all of whom are still under the age of 12 and haven't undergone "The Change" yet. My players have rescued these children (discovered through their surveillance efforts) but do not yet know about the virus. As such I'm really playing up the "inocense" of these children. The youngest, a six year old, has already latched onto one player calling her "mommy." When the players find out that these children are destined to become destructive forces of evil are they REALLY going to just take them out back and kill them all?
I don't know. I don't have a preplanned expected response. The joy for me as a GM comes in the posing of the question and watching the players derive an answer.
2) On a slightly more personal note one of the player's character's mother is Kinfolk and she is infected with this virus... and pregnant. Now what?
For the record I don't consider my group to play in a full on "focused" Narrativist fashion. I consider my game to be a fairly functional Narrativist-Simulationist blend when considered from global, "how does this group play." However, I think that *I* personally make fairly Narrativist decisions as a GM.
Again, I don't know if this counts as LARGE amounts of Director Stance but I do encourage Director Stance on a immediate scene by scene basis.
Jesse
Valamir, I've stated a number of times in this thread what I don't think is fun. My intitial question, bolded, summarized most of it: "When you give up the control and power of creation, what's left for a N-GM but menial labor, and what fun is that?" People have since pointed out to me that my question presupposes that a GM gives up *all* control, which is a fallacy for most games. I'm still dubious that much directoral power can be handed out to the players w/o pushing the GM to the status of menial labor, but I recognize and understand the other position better now.
As for what I think is fun about being a traditional GM, I stated that as well in the opening paragraph: "...it's creating something, and watching that creation in action. There's most certainly a control-side to it as well."
Mike, and others: when I say something is "fun", in the end I do mean "for me". I'm grown up enough to understand that my choice of fun doesn't apply to everyone around me. That won't stop me from being curious as to what or how someone else finds or derives fun, and I think that curiosity isn't a bad thing. Also, Ron wrote something in one of those threads he pointed me to, and it actually is important here even though the context is different. We're talking about my mind, and that isn't a fair place. It's full of misinformed notions and summary judgements. I like to think, though, that I'm doing some good here by putting them down in a thread and giving people an opportunity to disabuse me of my notions and judgements.
Jesse,
QuoteThe joy for me as a GM comes in the posing of the question and watching the players derive an answer.
I find that fascinating; something else for me to mull over. Thanks for the response.
-Jeff
Hey,
I think this is going to be one of those "point people to it" threads that can help out a great deal in the future. Thanks to everyone for participating.
Personal note: people sometimes get the idea that I'm a very improvisational, very share-the-power sort of GM. I'm not, at least not in terms of specific kinds of power. As it happens, I'm a lot more like a bass player in a rhythm-and-blues band - without me, it all falls apart. I don't "say" much, in terms of content, but I'm "talking"/present all the time. The players are like the lead guitar, drums, rhythm guitar, and vocals. What they say is what most people think of as the song. However, without that "four" beat (Kicker spiking), without the confirmation of the chords (NPC responses), without the eighth-bar chord change (scene framing) ... no song.
Ask any bass player. Typically, they're so calm, compared to most band members. Typically, everyone just rolls their eyes when the lead singer has yet another tantrum, but they all sit up straight if the bass talks about "another direction, maybe"?
Doesn't seem like being the bitch to me.
Best,
Ron
I've been reading this thread and thinking "isn't there a simpler answer about what's fun in this mode?" I knew there was (for me, anyway), but I couldn't find a way to say it. Jeff's phrasing his question as "When you give up the control and power of creation, what's left for a N-GM but menial labor, and what fun is that?", and Ron's re-expression of the Band Metaphor, uncovered a way (by my brutally mis-matching the band metaphor with game terms):
It's fun because I have in no way given up the power of creation. I'm creating up a storm - as I play. Based on the sheet music*, some of which was written by the designer, some by me, maybe some by other band members. Yeah, sometimes it's hard to let other's into the sheet music creation - but if I didn't, my creating would *end* once that music was done. Play would simply be the "revealing" of my creation.
The opportunity to be truly part of the performance - to create the game as we play it - more than compensates for the lost power.
(*"sheet music" isn't quite what I mean - I'm no music expert, but even in a jazz improv, there a basic theme that folks riff off, right? That's inculded here, too.)
(And writing this has helped me realize something: if I can't GM this way - which has happened on pretty rare occassions - I'd just assume not GM. I can be pretty happy playing a character in some Game/Sim-focused modes, but not as a GM.)
Anyway, like folks have said, a very interesting thread. Thanks, all,
Gordon
Hi everybody,
Well, Gordon got his concise post up before I finished typing this monstrosity, but what the hell....
******
Narrativism isn't Author Stance or Director Stance. The two stances (along with Actor stance), can show up in any form of play.
(Favorite example: A bar fight is about to break out. A players says, "My guy picks up a beer mug and smashes it against the sailor's face." The GM never said there's a beer mug there, but it seems reasonable for the PC to grab one off the table -- essentially allowing the Player to create a mug out of verbal air. That's Directorial power in the Players hands, and we all use it all the time.)
*****
Kickers aren't tied to Director stance. They're tied to Author stance. During chargen, a player says, "I want a Kicker like this: My daughter shows up -- haven't seen her in ten years -- says she needs a million dollars for her two kidnapped children." This is author stance because the Player is creating a bucket load of story material. But it's not Director stance because the GM can create the circumstances of the kidnapping. Who is the kidnapper? Are the kids alive? That's all up in the air at the Kickers creation. It will be resolved through play.
So if that's the Kicker, and I as GM, decide the kidnappers a low life by the docks, and the player decides, during play, this guy and decides he's got all the good making for a henchman.... Well, that's the player's choice. That's Authorship. Note that this all went back and forth between the players.
As noted in posts above, this will be appealing to some, not to others. There's plenty of precedent in other creative fields however: jazz has been mentioned, as well as improvised theater games. Why is it fun? It's fun because it's fun to catch the ball and spin it back in an interesting way. It just... is.
********
Let us not forget Bangs. Once you've introduced Kickers into Narrativist play, you'll probably add Bangs. Bangs are the *new* problems tossed at the players during a session. They're like Kickers in a way, but lighter, and one to a dozen of them will be wrapped up before the Kicker is resolved. The GM creates these -- either before hand or on the spot. He tosses them to the players ("Aliens are unfolding for the heating unit ducts!"; "You enter the crime scene: There's a dead criminal defense lawyer with a pound of flesh torn out of him and the word GREED written on the wall -- just like the murder yesterday with GLUTONY") and see how they respond. The Narrativist slight of hand is this: the GM waits to see what the players have their characters do in response. He does not anticipate the response. Thus, he's tossed the verbal ball, the players have it, reshape the rooms air into new sounds and tosses it back to the GM.
(In the second exampel above, from Se7en, Somerset doesn't do the PC thing -- that is, hunker down deeper on the case. He wants off *now* -- before he gets sucked deeper down into this freakshow. That's a Narativist choice in action, and we would never know that might happen until that moment when the decision was made after the Bang was offered.)
*********
And smaller than Bangs are just the -- you know -- problems the GM offers up. The PC wants to hit on the princess. The GM offers up her father keeps her locked up. In Narativism, the players have defined what they want for their characters, but the GM offers problems.
(This is different from other styles, where the GM offers both the want and the problem. It may not seem like a big difference, but it is. Especially when the players, in this style of play start creating their *own* problems. Why would they do that? Because that's what a *story* is like. Different strokes... blah, blah, blah.)
**********
Workload. Some games and group and style require a lot of prep and detail so, when people, objects and sites are accessed they can be used effectively by the rules. However, some game styles, which requires a more free flow, have rules that you can wing faster. Sorcerer, for example, has four stats for charcters. If somebody decides he's going to sleep with the barmaid that night, the numbers are ready.
Now. You're either the kind of person who likes making stuff up on the spot, or you're not. But I think it's important to keep in mind that some brains actually *like* making stuff up on the spot. It's not something to be dealt with -- it's actually a pleasuable experience.
As Jesse pointed out in his terrific essay, the GM preps a lot of stuff before hand. So the main stuff is already worked out. It *isn't* all done on the fly.
But if the players are going to have their characters go anywhere willy-nilly, how is this possible?
*********
The Answer:
The Focus of Play. Each mode of play G, N, and S has its own goals. N play is about the thematic premise. (Which Jesse brought up in his post.) The question asked by the scenario, which all the players will have their characters answer through play.
Also, their Kickers. The contract is this: you made up your character -- pursue it.
So yes, in the Bar of Infinite Possibilities described above it is a nightmare in the making for the GM. But there's some things to keep in mind:
The characters were, I believe, described as sitting around coming up with more and more stuff for the GM to create. There was no narrativst focus. No Kicker, No Thematic Question, No Bangs. (Bangs should work thematically into the story as well.) That is, there were none of the tools the *GM* and players use to keep the session on track and moving forward. This could, of course, go on endlessly.
The point is, if my focus is to rescue my grandchildren without parting with a million dollars, I'm not going to walk around town checking out real estate prices. We have already decided the session is about the Kicker and the Thematic Question. So: does asking about real estate have anything to do with either of these? No? So no one would do it.
That's how it doesn't spin out of control while sitting in bar. We all know the focus. The GM's done the back story on that focus. The players move the story forward on that focus. The GM responds with new challenges to the players on that focus.
That's Narrativist play. Some people find it fun.
*******
Thus, the GM's fun comes from the give and take of creating a story on the fly with the players, watching how the story resolves itself, watching how the thematic question is answered by the players, thinking on his feet with new NPCs and interactions, and, for me at least, being amazed by the choices and actions the players have their characters make that he never could have seen coming. The work load, such as it is, isn't debilitating because a lot of it's been prepped beforehand [see Jesse's essay], the game facilities creation on the fly, and most importantly, what might feel like work to some is mittigated by the pleasures listed in the first half of this paragraph.
Take care,
Christopher
Quote from: Jaifa horde of unstoppable dragons invading all of shadow (etc, use your imagination), then I'd stop the players from designing in the traveller who tells them how to build an "anti-dragon ray gun".
Ah, but since the goal is cooperative storytelling, such an idea would run counter to the productivity of the session or the story. Why would a player create the anti-dragon ray gun to destroy the plot element? The GM and players are not in conflict...the GM's creations are not obstacles to be overcome, they are story elements.
I have a feeling that you're thinking in adversarial mode -- that is "me vs. them" or "GM vs. players" when such cannot be the case, and if it is, there are serious social issues at play which have nothing to do with directoral power.
But obviously, yes, we fundamentally disagree.
So this isn't a problem of "this way works, this way doesn't" or right and wrong, or fun and not-fun, it is simply a matter of taste: either you enjoy sharing control or you don't. I wouldn't recommend sharing control if control of stuff that's "yours" is what makes gaming fun for you!
As Gareth stated eariler about different strokes.
QuoteQuoteFor example, you have no control over a movie, a novel or a television show, yet they are enjoyable, they are entertaining.
I don't do any work either. I just watch or read. Fundamentally different situation.
Please don't quote partial statements and respond to them, it leads to out-of-context quoting and nit-picking. I can't stress this enough: line-by-line replies are one of the bad habits of online discussion and frowned upon here. Respond to things as a whole, not as pieces (note I specifically pointed out that RPGs were different and continued the line of thought).
Lecture over. :)
Point being that it was an example of how one can have fun or be entertained without having any control, since your question seemed to revolve specifically around a difficulty visualizing such.
That RPGs require input makes them different from books in this respect, but one doesn't loose control, as I previously mentioned...one cannot be assigned to menial labor by players with directorial power. The GM still maintains creative control of whatever it is he adds, at the moment he adds it, just as it is for each player. Once again, it is cooperative, not adversarial...the GM is not out to get you, to beat you, to have his plot come to fruition unless the characters do something...collectively, the group is out to create a story, together.
The fun comes from seeing what everyone does with the stuff, as a group.
It would work contrary to the game for the GM to be relegated to a "menial" position, if such were possible.
That's my addition to this thread, and I hope everyone's given you things to think about, and hopefully answered your question to an extent, providing understanding of the viewpoint.
QuoteKickers aren't tied to Director stance. They're tied to Author stance. During chargen, a player says, "I want a Kicker like this: My daughter shows up -- haven't seen her in ten years -- says she needs a million dollars for her two kidnapped children." This is author stance because the Player is creating a bucket load of story material. But it's not Director stance because the GM can create the circumstances of the kidnapping. Who is the kidnapper? Are the kids alive? That's all up in the air at the Kickers creation. It will be resolved through play.
I'm not the expert here, but when I read up on the section about kickers, and then a thread or two on director/author/actor stance, it seemed to me that kickers can clearly fall under directoral stance. If memory serves, directoral stance is anytime a player a) thinks outside the character's head, and b) effects the environment at large as opposed to the character.
In your example, potentially a daughter, two children, a kidnapping, and a kidnapper(s) have all been created that may not have existed before this moment. The player may leave these as hollow shells waiting for the GM to fill them, but it seems clear to me that these are items in the environment, not the character.
Now, let me cut back to Jesse's remark for a moment:
QuoteThe joy for me as a GM comes in the posing of the question and watching the players derive an answer.
I was thinking about this line a lot, and I would probably say:
QuoteThe joy for me as a GM comes in creating a situation and watching the players deal with it.
If I was into the question, then I think I could see GMing while giving up a good deal of directoral control. Basically, having started with a setting and a premise, I'm now just shepherding (may be too strong a word) the characters along as the make up situations, heading towards my question. It may require patience, but one day I'll see the light (or fear) in their eyes as they realize the nature of the question I've posed.
However, I'm into the situation. I want to see how the players (or characters, it gets slippery there) respond to a particular challenge. I like doing that at the grand level, and I like doing that at a smaller level. If everybody else is busy creating situations, and I'm just filling those in, then I lose the part of the game that I like.
-Jeff
Quote from: hardcoremoose
How does a GM have fun in a game with a high degree of player empowerment?
For me, after running/playing Star Odyssey, I'll hand more power to the players and join in as a player myself, with no GM at all.
QuotePlease don't quote partial statements and respond to them, it leads to out-of-context quoting and nit-picking. I can't stress this enough: line-by-line replies are one of the bad habits of online discussion and frowned upon here. Respond to things as a whole, not as pieces (note I specifically pointed out that RPGs were different and continued the line of thought).
The reason I quoted that line was that it served as a fundamental premise from which you worked your argument. You were arguing that there exists situations over which I have no control, but still would find fun. My point, which I feel you dodged, is that it's not simply an issue of control, but control and work, or in my prior language control and responsibility. So I accept that I can have fun with no control, but only in situations where I have no responsibility.
What I also said, and still maintain, is that a situation in which I have responsibility and no control will not be fun. It may have its moments, but overall it's not a fun situation. Many others agree with this stance, but point out that it's a faulty way to view shared directoral control. While I don't entirely agree with that assessment, I at least see that POV.
-Jeff
Hi Jeff,
Two points of clarification:
The Kicker is created before play begins, so the Kickers characters never spring upon the GM in the midst of play. Kickers are also negoatiated by the player and GM. These distinctions may or may not matter to you -- but when it comes to Kickers it means the GM is not blind-sided in the moment with a half dozen characters he's got to invent on the spot.
Now since play hasn't begun yet it's technically not a stance at all, but I ascribed it to Author stance because it sets up the "player's own priorties, fully acknowledging out-of-character knowledge and goals" (to quote some words Ron wrote about Author stance). So, I'll drop whether or not it's Author or Director -- that's not what matters. What matter is this:
My main point of bringing this up was to make it clear that the Kicker doesn't dump work on a GM in the middle of play, and that the GM can use all the character possibilities created by the Kicker for his own ends. I as GM control the daughter, the children and the kidnappers and the player gets to find out what I came up with. More importantly, they're not just part of the environment, but are the PC's story. The GM has a lot of power in the fact that he creates the characters. He will still be able to revel in revealing who these characters are when the they show up on camera for the first time. (Or the PC might think he knows who these characters are and find deeper secrets, and so on...) In other words, to use your word, the GM has control of these characters.
Again, I'm fully aware that this is not the sort of play you enjoy (or could anticipate enjoying), but part of you post concerns a great dea of discussion about all the work the GM does without having any control. The Kicker, in fact, is not that situation at all. It is a shared creation between the GM and player before play starts that lets the player define what kind of story he wants to pursue, and the GM to define and control vital elements about that story.
As for the Thematic Premise: I think Jesse is playing his group's theme pretty fast and loose. [In other words, he's playing a Narrativist game, his players aren't quite doing so.]
Note that usually the Question is known to everyone at the table before play starts. It is one of the focusing elements of most narrativst games. Everyone knows the question, but only at the climax of the story does each player find out how all the characters answer the question. (This is, in theory and apparently in practice, one of the reasons players keep paying attnetion when the camera is not on them -- they want to watch how each characters is moving along toward and answer to the question during play.)
Take care,
Chrstopher
Quotea situation in which I have responsibility and no control will not be fun.
Note that most of my post dealt with exactly this issue, or rather, non-issue, since I maintain such a thing is an impossibility. In an RPG, having any responsibility at all grants you control. Whether it is the kind of control you want (ie: complete control or partial control) is another issue.
Thus I don't feel I dodged the point at all.
If you think I am wrong in my assessment of it as a non-issue, please, say so! Or rather, better yet, detail a situation -- written as though during play -- where such is occuring, so I might see it in action. This would would be greatly helpful, as everything I imagine results unerringly in responsibility shifting to the controller.
Also, I'd greatly appreciate it (and it would facillitate better discussion of the issue) if you could please define for me exactly what you mean by "responsibilities" -- that is, what menial functions you percieve the GM to continue to have that leave him with no control.
I ask these two things because I can imagine no situation in where a person would have responsibility, yet no control.
Hi Jeff,
most of your posts seem based on the assertion that:
1°) - "if I (as a GM) don't have (complete ?) control over what I'm creating, then it's not fun for me"
2°) - "if the players create things and then leave the control over it to me, then all I'm doing is manage things (menial work ?). It's a lot of work and it's not fun"
Am I reading you right ?
If I'm not reding you right could you clarify what I read wrong.
If I am, then I guess the situation is close to an "agree to disagree". Because I understand your points, but I'm not sharing them at all. My fun is very close to what Jesse reported.
1°)- if I as a GM have complete control, I'm bored (it's not fun). I have to give players control to have fun. Does it imply that I have to change some ways of presenting plot elements, resolving conflicts,...Yes, and that's part of what make it fun
for me. I don't want to know what will happen. I come witha situation (that the platers helped created) and enjoy seeing how the players get through.
2°)-it's not more work as I don't created as many things up beforehand and without the players imput as before. So there's still work, but at a different time and under different conditions. And that change in time and conditions is what make it fun
for me.
I think that's two very different way to play (and to prepare things), and that no way is better or more valid than the other. My initial problem with your fists posts was your lack of refusal of the possibility that other way to be fun.
Now that this refusal is gone, all I can say is different way to play (to have fun) for different people.
Bwt,
Greyorn wrote :
Quotedetail a situation -- written as though during play -- where such is occuring, so I might see it in action.
I think you should do that, it will make thing that much clear.
Fabrice.
Gentlemen,
At the risk of being rude I feel that many of the last posts are rehashing items that have already been beaten up and/or explained thoroughly earlier in this thread. I have accepted some new definitions, recognized one or two areas where my initial statement was flawed, and I think we've reached a "I get it, but it's not my style" position.
Christopher,
Work is work, whether it's in the middle of play or not. Furthermore, there's only so much play time available, only so many story events that can be processed effectively in that time, and only so many story elements that can easily be added. If the players are continually outlining story events and adding elements, then at a certain point I cease to have the practical ability to introduce my own events and elements, or at least major ones. If my goal as a GM is to toss events & elements at characters and see how they respond, then I'm not meeting my goals. Can there be a middle ground where both player and GM-made major events & elements can exist? I recognize the logical existance of one, but am dubious about it in practice. I think the scale would slide very quickly to one end or another.
As to my ultimate question, I do see how a GM can have fun in such a situation; it's not a focus on elements & events, it's a focus on a thematic question.
Btw, I do want to state my dissapointment at one item; Ron & Jesse were the only 2 GMs to stand up and answer my specific question directly. I'm not saying that the other posts are insignificant, not by a long shot, but it would have meant a lot to me (and I suspect the casual reader of this thread, if there is such a beast) to see GM after GM stand up and assert "I hand over significant amounts of directoral power in a long-term, ongoing campaign, and I have fun."
It does leave me dubious that such a practice is really a practical one. It seems exceptional, to me.
-Jeff
P.S. If I missed a GM who posted, I do apologize. It's tough responding to a few pages of items.
Quoteit would have meant a lot to me (and I suspect the casual reader of this thread, if there is such a beast) to see GM after GM stand up and assert "I hand over significant amounts of directoral power in a long-term, ongoing campaign, and I have fun."
Sorry, I was on vacation & away from computers. Just got back. So...
*raises hand* I hand over significant amounts of directorial power in both long-term & short-term games, & I have fun. In fact, as L'il Nicky said, if I don't do that, I don't have fun. As GM, I get bored & frustrated being "the guy who provides the world & the story". I'm getting better & better at scene-framing, & as I have gotten better, so have my Players.
I have, I think, an anecdote in a thread around here somewhere (the thread about my
Sorcerer game, "Hellfire"?), but I can't remember where it is & don't feel like digging around, so I'll repeat it here. We were playing a session of
Sorcerer. It was getting towards the end of that session, time to wrap things up. I asked, "Who wants the last scene?" Gregg said he did, & Colin said, "Oh, but I want the next to last!". He jumped up, ran out of the room, & came back with a CD, which he wouldn't show anyone. He put it in the CD player (the game was sort of meant to be like a TV show, so music was very important). Colin said, "We cut to a shot of the hall outside of Lupe's [his character] dorm room. The music begins." He pushed play & James Brown's "Sex Machine" began playing. "Lupe comes strutting down the hall in a towel, doing a booty dance. She goes into her room & we see her walk into the closet. Her clothes come flying out. Finally, she emerges, dressed in a nice, black dress." Chris suddenly interjected, "There's a knock at the door." Colin: "Lupe opens the door." Chris: "Ernie [his character] is standing there, in his usual Polo & slacks, but dressed nicer. The shirt's tucked in. His hair is combed. He asks Lupe, 'Are you ready?" Colin: "'The question is, are YOU ready?' Lupe grabs his collar & drags him out."
That scene was significant in a lot of in-game ways, mostly because of the characters & their personalities & issues. But it was significant to me because my Players were really starting to get comfortable taking the reigns. And what isn't shown by that scene was all the scene-framing & leading I was doing throughout most of the session, presenting the PCs with conflicts & complications to deal with. As Ron noted, while it may sound as if we're being the Players' bitch, we're really guiding everything, keeping the game running smoothly, & giving the Players lots of juicy conflicts to deal with. What I don't give them is solutions--they deal with the conflicts as they see fit, I don't have any pre-thought-out answers. It can all go any way it does, & I'm ready for the story to go in directions I hadn't planned out.
Now, maybe we've reached a point were this is a case of "fun for you, not fun for me". Which is fine. But this is what does it for me. I don't GM to be "the storyteller" or "the person in charge of the world". I do it to facilitate everyone, me & the other Players, creating a good story & having a good time. But one of the most satisfying parts of that is sitting back & letting the Players take the rudder. It puts a big ol' grin on my face. (And on the not-so-flip-side of that, as a Player, if I don't feel I can take the rudder from time to time I get incredibly frustrated & bored.)
I hope that answers your question.
Quote from: JaifIt does leave me dubious that such a practice is really a practical one. It seems exceptional, to me.
It is exceptional. As such sharing of power is very new, few people have had time to play a lot with it. I for instance, not wanting to be disingenouos, cannot say that I've played a long-term game using such power (I am actually just starting one, but it's still in its infancy, yet). I have, however, used such sharing so much in the short term, that I feel that I can say with certaintly that I could keep it up indefinitely if I liked. That being based on the fact that I do less preparation in my sharing games than in my non-sharing games. I know you find this hard to visulaize, but it's true. Ron has stated that prep work is actually about equal for both modes, just different. This will vary by individual, but I can attest that sharing games can be run with very little prep if one wants to.
A larger amount of evidence can be found amongst the Freeformers, however, who share power like mad. Often there is no GM at all. But when there is, often his "duties" are light, like acting as a mediator in the case of player conflict. Some of those games have been going on for more than ten years, so they certainly qualify as long-term, I'd suggest.
Another misconception that you seem to have with such games is that the players will just run amok creating things willy-nilly which will keep the GM on his heels trying to keep up. Well, if you had a player that did that, then, yes, this would be a problem. But I've never seen it happen. Players with such abilities create only as much as is neccessary to move the story forward, and no more. Why would they want to litter their own stories with garbage? In practice, such powers are limited in some way by the game, just as a GMs powers are limited.
The propensity for players to behave irresponsibly is no more than the propensity of a GM to do the same in any other game. So, the question of bad players is irrelevant to power sharing games, a bad player can ruin any game. Players with such power have a responsibility to the game (just as they do when they are a player in a game which only allows them control of one character), and in general, they play responsibly. And when they do this reduces the workload for the GM, as opposed to increasing it. The GM can rely on the players to get him out of jams when he is stuck, for example. This point about increased player responsibility may have been overlooked previously in this discussion.
BTW, another problem in understanding the fun in question is in your definition of work. You say that "Work is work" but that's not much of a definition. I'd say that work is something that isn't desirable to do. Otherwise play would be work as well, and then we'd wonder why bother playing at all. Thing is, that I, and others like me do not find the effort that one has to put into such preparations as undesirable activity (I think Gordon made that point?).
Put it another way, I do such activities whether I'm playing or not. I have several complete fantasy worlds prepared just waiting for players, simply because I like to make them in my spare time. It's not work for me, it's more like art or something. I'm talking about both the map making and other simmy stuff, as well as the character preparation and bang stuff for more power sharing games. It's all fun for me. This includes the challenges of adapting to other players input in play. It seems odd to me that you'd want to be a GM if you find the prep work tedious. This difference in opinion may explain some of the differences in what we like as far as RPGs.
Mike
Hey Jeff,
Responses to two of your points, in reverse order:
Btw, I do want to state my dissapointment at one item; Ron & Jesse were the only 2 GMs to stand up and answer my specific question directly....it would have meant a lot to me (and I suspect the casual reader of this thread, if there is such a beast) to see GM after GM stand up and assert "I hand over significant amounts of directoral power in a long-term, ongoing campaign, and I have fun."I'm not sure you can reach the conclusion that GM's who hand over directorial power to their players in long-term play don't have fun from the data you've collected. Ron and Jesse are the only Forge regulars who've done it. From what you know, why not draw the conclusion that every GM who's done it has been more than satisfied with the results? My current group doesn't do campaigns. We rotate GMing of closed-ended scenarios that last four or five sessions. The longest was a
Theatrix game that resolved its plot in eight sessions. But if we were to do something longer, I wouldn't have any hesitation about the players having directorial power. And in fact, now that we've gotten used to it, I think there's a good chance a game would be very unsatisfying for both players and GM without it.
If the players are continually outlining story events and adding elements, then at a certain point I cease to have the practical ability to introduce my own events and elements, or at least major ones. If my goal as a GM is to toss events & elements at characters and see how they respond, then I'm not meeting my goals. Can there be a middle ground where both player and GM-made major events & elements can exist? I recognize the logical existance of one, but am dubious about it in practice.It doesn't really play out like that. Substantive directorial power, whether wielded by the player or the GM, is about the protagonism of the player characters. And players quickly recognize the limits of their ability to use directorial power on behalf of their own character's protagonism. My thread,
how we played Chalk Outlines, goes into detail about the play experience where our group had this realization, but in short, a character needs adversity in order to capture the interest of the audience and emerge as a protagonist, and needs to rely heavily on the GM for it. Adversity generated by a player toward their own character just doesn't have the same effect, in practice. As the GM, with a group of players wielding directorial power, expect the players to pay just as much attention to the events and elements you introduce as they always have. If the elements and events you introduce deliver meaningful adversity to the player characters, their story instincts on behalf of the protagonism of their characters will not allow them to ignore your stuff.
Paul
Hey everyone,
My Moderator antennae are twitching.
Please note: we have hit the fifth page. Also note: Jeff has raised a good issue and received many replies, some of which have spun into separate issues. Also note: we are discussing some things (GMing ability and preferences) that are very hard to separate from our own feelings of self-worth and accomplishment.
I now ask, Jeff, are you reasonably satisfied with this thread, such that you would be happy to close it, mull things over, and raise related issues later? Or would you like it to continue? I ask because it's possible that you may be feeling ganged-up on, which is practically unavoidable considering how many folks have worked hard, some for over a decade, at developing this mode of GMing you're asking about.
Everyone else, please shut up until Jeff answers this question. I think the thread has accomplished its purpose (for which I give Jeff credit, especially for dealing with some arguably confrontational posts), and I'd like to stave off unnecessary hassles about side issues.
Best,
Ron
I'm not feeling ganged-up on, and even if I did god knows I asked for it. I took a polar position at the start of this as a tactic to get commentary, and I think it worked.
I do agree, Ron, that this thread has run it's course. I am going to take the opportunity to include a few things:
1) Thanks to all for the replies. I was doing this to learn (what's on the other side of this fence?) and I did.
2) My last comment about "dissapointment" was merely my sly, oh-so-subtle way of encouraging any hesitant people to come out of the woodwork. I have a suspiscion that there are viewers out there who rarely post, and would be quite happy to hear someone stand up and say "I run things this way, it's fun and here's why."
3) Last, and it's a bit of tangent, I think it's worth it for players out there to try to consider things from the GM's perspective. I've GMed for a long time, so when I play in a game I'm very respectful of the GM. As a rule, I believe it's easy for a player to get something out of the game, but harder for the GM, so I look for ways that I can assist. "Assist" is vague, I know, but it's really situation dependant; you may be talking about an out of game assistance, or an in-game suggestion, or backup dealing with a player, or whatever.
Be kind to the GM, and thanks again for the posts,
-Jeff
Hi there,
Just in case someone was eyeing someone cute instead of listening, that's it for this thread, folks. G'bye.
Best,
Ron