Lets start off with a little definition of what I mean. When I say Moderator I do not mean so much in a Traditional MASTER or MONITOR status but more towards a Judge or Moderator of the Forum, who allows creativity to flow by making sure a small (or perhaps large) number of rules are followed. Much like a moderator of a Political Talk Show. OF course there are those who just pose questions and then sit back and nod and then there are those who... "Wrong! Patty Patty Buch Buch!" you know the drill I think.
Another possibilityor perspective is that of Editor of a Compilation. Depending on the level of your authors (players) you may need a light or heavy touch and its the Editor's job to see that all the stories in this Compilation get their due. More on this later.
So we're dreding up all this Director Stance stuff again? Well no I hope not because, as my friend and cohort at ADG can tell you, I hate directors stance and player in the same sentence. Well hate may be to strong a word but it scares me as few things in the RPG industry do. Why? Well my experience with such things at an early age conjure memories of cowboys and indians where each player sort of made it up as he (or she) went along. So despite the fact that we have a minor framewrok, we still have fat faced Billy X shooting you and spitting through his red face and pressed lips after you clearly sent Billy and his invisible Cherokee companions to the Dead Book. Then of course you get slapped.
I have spent over half my life in the weight room so that 20 years later much fatter and richer Bill X can get red faced and spit through his teeth that my Orc Chieftan is dead cause Bill X can quote Blade better then I can? No. Now I look over at at Bill and say "No Bill, you missed your parry and the Orc Chieftan cut off your arm. Now go roll up your next Lesbo Amazonian Sartarite Herder girl."
You may chuckle. You may think I am wasting good Forum bandwidth. You even be offended. Yet I guarantee right now, there is an RPG with Player directors right now, where that is happening. Some girlfriend or boyfriend or smart kid is leaning over and saying "No No, don't do it like that. Do X and my character Jean Grey, the Lesbo Amazonian Sartarite HErder Princess <girl> will do be able to grab the glory er kill the Orc chieftan."
At this point let me apologise to Clinton and Ron for falling into what Ron calls my baroom philosophy.
So whats the point? The point is that in my opinion Director Stance, while ideal, is not a good style of play because of the danger that one player will dominate game by virtue of a quicker tongue or imposing personality. At least with the Corporate Model (ie D&D, West End, White Wolf etc) there is a (heavy) set of rules that gives the shy and the non articulate a chance for a little glory and fun. That is not to say anyoen one's agme is bad IF it uses Director Stance for players. In fact many are quite novel and impressive. I just don't think it rights the GM heavy ship.
So we come back Editorist Theory. What is the goal? Aside from having fun? In Editorist Theory I am proposing that the Goal of Role Playing is to create a framework which equally incorporates every author's story. Together with the Editor/GM they create a small or large scale epic where although all the stories sort of meet in the middle they may not begin or end together. Now jsut to begin, I will say that Editorist is just as much an ideal but one I feel is more easily attainable then others.
In essence, the Editor/GM provides a framework and ensures that the framework remains alive. Notice I did not say unchanged because with house rules and thousands of interpretatiosn of any rule or idea, no two GM/Editors will likely make the same call. It is their responsibility that inconsistent bits of story are pruned or changed and that the Story be allowed to bloom into its rightful place.
The GM/Editor is more than a Control of the envirment, he or she becomes the environment, reacting to the various players/authors. HE or she also makes sure the physics of game remain true.
Per example lets use my own Seraphim. In another post I established that Positive Energy embodies Compasiion and Mercy and cannot kill and cannot be malicious. A wide framework but the frame is visible. Negative Energy is the opposite; it cannot be merciful. So again we have Billy er bill who with only positive energy says "Ok I use my shield of force in this room and use it to "protect" everyone by envoloping all the air ducts and door wasy so the evil mean Rogue Seraphim loses air and dies... He dies gasping for air and crying out for mercy..." See how Billy has usurped the Framework? HE wants to use Positive energy for Negative effect. In my opinion this is too much power for the author/player. Billy could say he won the dice roll, with spectacular effect so HE decides both PC and NPC action. Of course thats a bit extreme and I think many people here would say "Whoa there Billy... you know PE canot do that..." and an argument ensues blah blah...
I suppose I have been harsh of Director Stance in general and many ideas that have been debated within this Forum. I am not trying to be Harsh but I wonder at the appeal of that OUTSIDE the walls of these Forums. Honestly I would certainly play such a game with almost everyone here because honstly it is kewl to be able to narrate cause and effect However, and this is not so much for the people who are doing soley in house, but for those of you who encourage others to play your games whetehr you charge for it or not, remember that not everyone is going to be playing it the same way.
Well ok anyway i have say and I hope it is more intelligent discussion then rant and I do apologise if I offended anyone for that was not my intent.
Sean
SMH
ADGBoss
Quote from: ADGBossThe point is that in my opinion Director Stance, while ideal, is not a good style of play because of the danger that one player will dominate game by virtue of a quicker tongue or imposing personality.
So why not use a game system where other players can interject and say, "hey! That's not right!" and then negotiate the outcome. And if Billy still insists on claiming excessive power (in the view of the other players), then Billy has to pay for it from a resource which is only filled by good roleplaying and accepting complications for one's character/s. If Billy refuses to play by the rules of the game, then obviously the group should no longer play with him, until he grows up. :)
In my experience with the above system with ruleslawyers and munchkins, it seems to work well.
Hi Sean,
I think your argument (correct me if I'm wrong) boils down to "don't give power to people because there are some who will abuse it." This is, incidentally, not unlike how laws and regulations in society works. If everyone was sane, compassionate and understanding any system would work, including "systemless" stuff like anarchy.
Since it seems you establish the GM as a "beneficial force", the problem isn't so hard to solve. In essence you give the power to judge right from from and only have very simple regulations what people are allowed to do, and count on the GM to chastise the offender.
This is like a country run by a fair and compassionate dictator :)
If the problem might be the GM as well... then you might want to let the rules regulate everything, including GM behaviour to keep everyone in line. Such a game would naturally be a lot more constrictive and impose much more restrictions on people who'd actually behave.
As we know from real life, laws don't make the bad people go away. It's more of a sort of poorly implemented damage control.
Correct me if I'm right, but my impression is that director stance usually involves equipping everyone with a shotgun and the licence to kill. Sure Billy may be a sharpshooter but he can't take out everyone if the rest of the players gang on him.
Something like that.
Quote from: Pale FireAs we know from real life, laws don't make the bad people go away. It's more of a sort of poorly implemented damage control.
And to keep on agreeing with Pale Fire, if one rewards desirable behaviour, then one usually gets desirable behaviour.
QuoteIf the problem might be the GM as well...
Its funny how most games assume the GM will be the good, impartial one, while the players will be manipulative and power grabbing. In my experience, the GM normally has the most invested in the game, and so is generally the first to get emotional and then controlling. Perhaps the benevolent GM assumption comes from most games being written by GMs?
Jeremy
I suppose what we are coming back to is the idea of rules to enforce social contract. Because we're talking about a consensual agreement of something that is not reality, its all the more important to make sure that those rules are firm.
What I see the difference being assumed between GM and players having Directorial power is that players have a personal bias, whereas the GM does not. In all honesty, I believe that anyone playing has a bias, and that bias is towards the particular experience that they wish to get from the game.
QuoteIn Editorist Theory I am proposing that the Goal of Role Playing is to create a framework which equally incorporates every author's story.
I'd say more importantly is each player's desired experience. If we're talking about a Gamist game, there may not be story involved at all, such as Rune, for example.
QuoteNow jsut to begin, I will say that Editorist is just as much an ideal but one I feel is more easily attainable then others.
In essence, the Editor/GM provides a framework and ensures that the framework remains alive. Notice I did not say unchanged because with house rules and thousands of interpretatiosn of any rule or idea, no two GM/Editors will likely make the same call. It is their responsibility that inconsistent bits of story are pruned or changed and that the Story be allowed to bloom into its rightful place.
So basically the Editor/GM is the enforcer of the rules, but allows for reasonable level of adaptation of the rules, correct? I'm not exactly sure how this makes the idea of the GM any different than the standard view held in most games, nor how the ideal would be easier to acheive than, say, the current standard of GMing.
Could you elaborate on your Editor theory a little more? I'm not understanding exactly its difference to standard GMing, nor how it allows everyone to have input into the story.
Chris
Quote from: nipfipgip...dipQuoteIf the problem might be the GM as well...
Its funny how most games assume the GM will be the good, impartial one, while the players will be manipulative and power grabbing. In my experience, the GM normally has the most invested in the game, and so is generally the first to get emotional and then controlling. Perhaps the benevolent GM assumption comes from most games being written by GMs?
Jeremy
No, a good point and you can have "Billy" as a GM and that can ruin your fun just as fast or faster. Thats a good point, that most games are written by GM or so it seems. I do not know anyone who writes a game and then without ever taking the GM seat says "Here I want to play this..."
The GM is not always benevolent, adn so the Framework should go both ways..
SMH
ADGBoss
Quote from: BankueiI suppose what we are coming back to is the idea of rules to enforce social contract. Because we're talking about a consensual agreement of something that is not reality, its all the more important to make sure that those rules are firm.
What I see the difference being assumed between GM and players having Directorial power is that players have a personal bias, whereas the GM does not. In all honesty, I believe that anyone playing has a bias, and that bias is towards the particular experience that they wish to get from the game.
QuoteIn Editorist Theory I am proposing that the Goal of Role Playing is to create a framework which equally incorporates every author's story.
Is Desired experience assumed? At its basic level everyone wants to have fun... or so I assume. A group of narrative players will want one thing, simulationist another. Ultimately though you sit down at the table for one purpose... essentially labeling it Editorist is saying that in Role Playing your telling a collection of stories and doing your best integrate them and have fun doing it.
As for how Editorist is different from Traditional Corporate model? Well its not entriely different, I am not sure any idea is genuinely new. I am trying to take elements from different ideas and ideals and put them in a super collider, hoping I comeout with a satisfactory mix.
When I have time I will elaborate more
SMH
ADGBoss
I'd say more importantly is each player's desired experience. If we're talking about a Gamist game, there may not be story involved at all, such as Rune, for example.
QuoteNow jsut to begin, I will say that Editorist is just as much an ideal but one I feel is more easily attainable then others.
In essence, the Editor/GM provides a framework and ensures that the framework remains alive. Notice I did not say unchanged because with house rules and thousands of interpretatiosn of any rule or idea, no two GM/Editors will likely make the same call. It is their responsibility that inconsistent bits of story are pruned or changed and that the Story be allowed to bloom into its rightful place.
So basically the Editor/GM is the enforcer of the rules, but allows for reasonable level of adaptation of the rules, correct? I'm not exactly sure how this makes the idea of the GM any different than the standard view held in most games, nor how the ideal would be easier to acheive than, say, the current standard of GMing.
Could you elaborate on your Editor theory a little more? I'm not understanding exactly its difference to standard GMing, nor how it allows everyone to have input into the story.
Chris
Wow.
I don't mean to come off soundig harsh either, but how is this not your own personal problem? Based off your own irrational fears. How much evidence do you have that adults that play such games act in the way you fear they will? While, OTOH, there is plenty of theoretical, and anecdotal evidence from people who actually play these games regularly that, in fact, none of what you fear will come to pass ever does. And I'm not just refering to play with other "Forgites", but all sorts of other people, including those who have never played RPGs before to the most experienced of players. Cite one actual example of such play going bad that was not a result of your personal problems with a dysfunctional player.
Further, your opinion that these games do not have substantial controls in their designs is also unfounded. They do in fact. In some cases, these are so much better defined than those in traditional games, that I'd guess that the chance of this sort of dysfunction is actually less than with those traditional games.
All I'm seeing here is an opinion based on fear. Any theory based on those assumptions is not one that I, or many others I think, are going to buy into.
Mike
I'm going to offer Mike Holmes the position of manning ADG's Spankin' Shed. :)
Seriously, though, Mike's comment gets to the heart of the matter: that the greater ADG play group hasn't had a lot of experience with player as Author or Director.
Along the lines of Andrew Martin's comment that "if one rewards desirable behaviour, then one usually gets desirable behaviour", and Mike's assertion that freeform systems better govern the use of Director stance, I think we'll find that as our play experience expands, we may well see positive examples of players as Authors and Directors.
It's about learning new ways of playing an RPG--ways that a system, like Feng Shui (as one example), may encourage.
Sorceror's in the mail. We'll find out soon.
Dave
www.azuredragon.com
Quote from: Mike HolmesWow.
I don't mean to come off soundig harsh either, but how is this not your own personal problem? Based off your own irrational fears. How much evidence do you have that adults that play such games act in the way you fear they will? While, OTOH, there is plenty of theoretical, and anecdotal evidence from people who actually play these games regularly that, in fact, none of what you fear will come to pass ever does. And I'm not just refering to play with other "Forgites", but all sorts of other people, including those who have never played RPGs before to the most experienced of players. Cite one actual example of such play going bad that was not a result of your personal problems with a dysfunctional player.
Further, your opinion that these games do not have substantial controls in their designs is also unfounded. They do in fact. In some cases, these are so much better defined than those in traditional games, that I'd guess that the chance of this sort of dysfunction is actually less than with those traditional games.
All I'm seeing here is an opinion based on fear. Any theory based on those assumptions is not one that I, or many others I think, are going to buy into.
Mike
Its hardly fear its based on over 20 years of experience in role playing. Certainly the Billy example is exagerated but its meant to be, sorry you do not find it comical. As Dave points out our group is the perfect example of people who are turned off by the idea of narrating both ends of the equation and of players who meddle with one another.
I the idea is to create a playable rules sets which empowers everyone involved, and as such yes it has to set certain limits. Bad players will be bad players no matter what.
Now to disagree with my conscience I am not sure we are going find Author / Director suddenly fulfilling even with, as we intend, we are more choosy with our players and playtest. Yet we will see I could be wrong.
Again thanks for the comments...
SMH
ADGBoss
Hey, you may hate the style (then again, who knows?). That's fine. I buy that.
All we ask is that you allow for the fact that it can and does work for those who are comfortable with it. Which I'd also estimate is a larger group than you seem to think. It's interesting to find that "experienced gamers" seem to dislike Director Stance way more than people who've never played RPGs.
Or so has been my experience.
Mike
Quote from: ADGBossBad players will be bad players no matter what.
In my experience, I've found that bad players are the way they are because of the rules systems the group uses; "bad players" follow the rules, while "good players" follow the cues of the GM.
With a rules system that rewards desirable behaviour, I've seen "bad players" behave just like "good players" in less than a few minutes.
Again, I think we've come back to the social contract issue.
QuoteI the idea is to create a playable rules sets which empowers everyone involved, and as such yes it has to set certain limits. Bad players will be bad players no matter what.
Which of course is that the rules are for. A set of agreed upon rules to adjucate what does and does not happen, how play proceeds, etc. But this is common to all games, and is not necessarily something new.
ADGBoss, what I am asking is for more definition about your Editor Theory, and how it would be incorporated into rules and encourage the "empowering" factor for all players. A common rule or drift to most games that not enough people pay attention to, is that the GM is given right to cheat, or ignor rolls. Granted, this is usually done in the PC's interest, but it also indicates that one person not only is in charge of adjucating the rules, enforcing the rules, but can secretly violate the rules at will without necessarily the players knowing.
As you've stated, your issues with players abusing the rules and social contract come from experience. I'm fairly certain that many, if not all, of these games had, !) lots of rules to cover many situations in the hope that the rule would negate abuse, and 2) The basic rule of the GM's say is final. If you think back to your experiences, did more rules necessarily help, or the fact that the book said your word was final stop arguments? Or is it that the social contract got stepped on to begin with?
Bringing this back full circle, could you give more detail as to how your Editor theory in its ideal state would empower players without giving them abusive power?
Chris
Quote from: Andrew MartinQuote from: ADGBossBad players will be bad players no matter what.
In my experience, I've found that bad players are the way they are because of the rules systems the group uses; "bad players" follow the rules, while "good players" follow the cues of the GM.
With a rules system that rewards desirable behaviour, I've seen "bad players" behave just like "good players" in less than a few minutes.
I don't agree because to me that seem liks saying Law breakers break the laws because the Laws are no good. give them good laws and they will behave. Admittedly all of our "bad" and "good" are extremely subjective and so its hard to quantify sometimes.
There seems to be a Gm = Evil theme running through here and in the last three years in Gaming in general it has really heated up. Almost to the poitn of GM bias or the idea that 1 person cannot run a quality game. Why is that? I know there are bad GM's out there just like there are bad players. This is not about bad players or bad GM's. Its about bringing some sort of Order out of what can often be chaos.
Bankuei
Gosh I have not had to go through Social contract since my Poli Sci days :)
LEt me kind of clean up Editorist thought here :) or try to remeber no one is required to buy into anything I say.
In the bad old days The GM rolled dice and the players rolled dice and out come was decided by who could min max their character. I am not sure I blame the systems as much of lack of experience in playing and running games. Players Min-Maxed their numbers. Even good rolls did not garuntee you survival if you didn't take the three correct choices of skills. Obviously some people were and are better at this then others. I am not saying this is bad but it always felt too contrived and in our terms very Gamist. It created a Gamer elite of sorts.
So we come to today where instead of Min-Maxing our rolls we can now min-max our words. More then once I have seen in this forum the idea that the better you describe action and outcome, the more... reward you received. Again we have a gamer elite which despite what people think does not include the GM as he is not so much environement as he is scenery. These well spoken intelligent people with the best of intentions dominate the game with their articulation. Now if poor Johnny is too shy to open his mouth, well hey that is Johnny's problem but in my mind there is gamism going on: the race for the best descriptor. HE or She who Acts and Directs the best wins or gets the most out of the game.
Ok so in Editorist theory the characters are not writing ONE story but each writing their own part of the greater anthology which the GM makes sure is equal parts. HE or she sits back and reacts as Environment to the various stories, ensures eeryone's story is heard, and does their best to encourage, through a rules light system (hopefully more rules are not better in my opinion) participation.
The reason I prefer GM description of resolution is that he or she would have a greater familairty with the ENvrionment (NPC's) etc.
Mike
I have no problem how you and your compadres role play. If it works if people play your games and enjoy well... thats our goal isn't? :)
I will remain skeptical of pure director Stance but no one is twisting my arm either (OK Dave IS twisting it but I am resisting). However, I am a little bothered by your estimate of my experience. because I have been playing that long doesn't make a god or great or good, but grant that as an intelligent and reasonably articulate Human, that I have played with a large number of gamers of all genders, religions, education levels, and what not, that I do not believe in directors Stance for players... I know people whose opions on RPGs I know to be educated, who find it abhorrent. I won't go that far, its a well though out philosphy but as you say not one I personally find appealing...
Thanks to you three especially for some good commentary and feel free to add more as you wish.
SMH
ADGBoss
Quote from: ADGBossQuote from: Andrew MartinQuote from: ADGBossBad players will be bad players no matter what.
In my experience, I've found that bad players are the way they are because of the rules systems the group uses; "bad players" follow the rules, while "good players" follow the cues of the GM.
With a rules system that rewards desirable behaviour, I've seen "bad players" behave just like "good players" in less than a few minutes.
I don't agree because to me that seem liks saying Law breakers break the laws because the Laws are no good. give them good laws and they will behave. Admittedly all of our "bad" and "good" are extremely subjective and so its hard to quantify sometimes.
I think we're in agreement then. Notice that "bad players" are following the written rules of the game system, and "good players" are breaking the written rules of the game system but are following the GM's social contract. Once the written rules exactly match the social contract, there can no longer be any difference between "good players" and "bad players".
I do see your point of system favoring certain players, but to be honest, I think all systems favor someone. For math heavy min/max systems, it favors those who can find break points and currency strategies, for games that reward narration, a pleasing narration, etc. I'm don't see how it is possible to create a game that doesn't favor someone, since gaming, like any other activity, has people who are strong at some points and weak at others.
QuoteOk so in Editorist theory the characters are not writing ONE story but each writing their own part of the greater anthology which the GM makes sure is equal parts. HE or she sits back and reacts as Environment to the various stories, ensures eeryone's story is heard, and does their best to encourage, through a rules light system (hopefully more rules are not better in my opinion) participation.
So, if I'm following you correctly, you're thinking similar to The Questing Beast's view of each player has their own story, and they may or may not cross or overlap?
A larger issue, if the players are in fact, writing/contributing/determining their stories, then shouldn't they gain some input as to the types of conflicts which they encounter? One can take two characters who have the same ideal; to live with their family, and put them through completely different conflicts, and arrive at a completely different story. As an example, take Mad Max from the first movie, and Maximus from Gladiator. Similar goals, completely different stories.
If we're going from the argument of "Control of your character=control of your story", that's not quite right either. If my goal is to have a very internal story about redemption, and the motivations of my character, and the GM puts me into a hack fest, or a political intrigue story, there's no guarantee of my story ever getting told.
I'm not arguing for or against Director Stance, or GM good/bad. What I'm going back to is your original idea that the GM should be more of a moderator than a dictator, yet in fact, a moderator has veto rights, but doesn't necessarily chime in very often(in moderator voice). If we were talking a political show, the moderator isn't there to express their views, but to highlight the views of the guests.
In this case, what you're talking about is a set of rules that strictly defines what a player can and cannot do, although I don't see how one stance as opposed to another makes a difference. Universalis is all Director stance but has very strict rules to prevent player abuse.
So, to clarify this a bit better: What powers would the GM have that would highlight player stories and prevent abuse? And second, what powers would the players have that would allow them to have input into their stories and prevent abuse?
Chris
I am in the middle of a few products but I am writing a response very soon and continuing the discussion
SMH
ADGBoss