Patrons and social connections-med long

[Valamir]

Protagonism does not equal giving the player the ability to derail the plot.  

For most roleplayers in most roleplaying games going on right now a player who intentionally tries to derail the plot is not called a protagonist...they're called a problem.

IF the goal of the game is one of shared authority with the players than your points are valid...but moot, since in such a game, a GM wouldn't be using the tactics you're taking issue with anyway.

But for most games...why would you ever expect the GM to cede that level of GM authority to a player who has done absolutely nothing to earn it except purchase an easily abused power from a list?

[Bob McNamee]

In fairness to the Telepathy type Player... I had one in my old Champs game... He had two main Mental Powers (amongst other powers) :1 to create a mind link between all the heros (or as one player called it..."a +20 Plot Device for why we can plan out our attacks...) and the other was a whole bunch of Telepathy...
It was a supers game so it wasn't often used for Detective work...
...but when used... I (as GM) either had the occasional compensated opponent who could resist it, or (most commonly) just went with the flow ... and often gave out info (including at least once where I handed the brand new unseen Villains character sheets directly to the character (since with his Encephalo-Helmet he could read them up and down all the way to base origins of fears etc...)

So,, I guess I must have put a priorty of Protagonizing my players back then too (even though we didn't have the lingo for it)

Bob McNamee

[C. Edwards]

It seems to me that if you want to run an adventure with a mystery plot that the plot needs to be inverted when you have mind-reading characters involved.

If you ran the same adventure with a character that simply had detective skills the whole point would be to find out whodunnit.  Along the way the characters get hassled, beat up, and find clues and evidence that eventually lead them to the gal who stole the cookie from the cookie jar.

While a mind-reader can potentially discover whodunnit very quickly, they still haven't gathered any substantial proof.  In most game settings, as has been mentioned before, mind-reading doesn't stand up in court.  If the players just go kick arse and take names when they think they know who the bad guys are then shouldn't the characters find themselves on the bad side of the law when their only excuse for whoopin butt was peeping in on somebodys thoughts?

The mind-reader and friends should still have to gather physical evidence of the bad guys guilt if they want popular opinion to consider them good guys.  That would probably involve some more mind-reading to discover where key pieces of evidence are hidden and getting hassled and beat up while trying to recover them.  Ofcourse, memories being what they are, the thoughts that get read may not be fully representative of what actually happened.

If the game setting is one where the characters can dish out vigilante justice without repercussions than a whodunnit is probably irrelevent anyway.  Anybody, mind-reader or not, could just go kick the arse and take the names of whoever they wanted.  Proof and detective work wouldn't be necessary.

In a world where mind-reading is an accepted and natural thing than a standard mystery is just not going to cut it.  I think a GM is just asking for heartache if he runs a game in that kind of setting.

This all assumes that the GM is working from a highly structured plot.  Since I am firmly against pre-structured plots, consider the following a formal protest.

Pre-Structured Plots!!?? Booo! Booo!!

-Chris

[Christoffer Lernö]

I agree with Chris, this is mainly a problem in illusionist games run through pre-structured plots not leaving enough room for improv.

People have already said this more or less, but look at the adventure with telepathy (or clairvoyance or whatever). Obviously the plots isn't flexible enough to accomodate these things.

Walt mentions the similarity with skills and he's 100% right. What if I can escape the orc horde the gm had decided we'd be captured by through climbing that mountain with my brutal climbing skill? (Or a really lucky roll might suffice in some games).

If that's a problem it's because it ruins the structure of the plot. But actually, unless we're playing a board game with very strict limits on what can be done and what can't, we're not going to be able to escape this fact.

Maybe I'm biased, being used to this kind of play, but improvisation really is the way to go. Have a loose plot thought out with some elements preprepared (if you wish) to have handy ready to dispense if the characters run into them. Go with the flow, weave the story around the players rather than try to fit the players into the already created weave.

It works excellent.

The other alternative is to run a SET IN STONE adventure. One character solves the whole thing through mind control? LET IT HAPPEN. It's cool too. People will remember the adventure they solved in unde 20 minutes of play for a long time. Think of it as playing a tournament game or something.

The problem is when GMs end up in-between these positions. They change the plot, but only to keep the players in line. That's a problem. I think detailing how to correctly GM is essential for sim games.

[Balbinus]

Christopher/Palefire,

Nicely put, that was what I was trying to say but failing.  Everyone else, Palefire put my point far better than I did, the essential issue is one of freedom as opposed to control.  Is the game player centred or not?  Do characters actually matter to the outcome?

[Jeremy Cole]

Go with the flow, weave the story around the players rather than try to fit the players into the already created weave.

You read my mind.  This is what I have thought for years.  If character's are to actually lead the story, the adventure has to be able to go anywhere.

The GM should be reactive.  Of course you should throw things in for them to aim for, but they shouldn't have to if they don't want, and any plotting on how they get there should be very loose.

I really think mechanics that allow quick on the spot preparation are the way to go with game systems.

Oh, and thanks for all the mind control limits and tricks, they are very handy.

[Le Joueur]

Go with the flow, weave the story around the players rather than try to fit the players into the already created weave.

The GM should be reactive.  Of course you should throw things in for them to aim for, but they shouldn't have to if they don't want, and any plotting on how they get there should be very loose.

This, I don't quite agree with.  Oh, I'm all about player-empowerment, but I think a gamemaster must be ready, willing, able, and vigilant to step it when things founder.  Players are great at creating fun in a game, but they don't always pay attention to the needs of others.  Not having a personal character, I think the gamemaster is uniquely suited to 'keeping things on track' fun-wise.

I think a facilitator is a better model for good gamemastering.  You give the players the lead, but you also give them good materials to go on, offer directions they may not have thought of, fence off the 'out of bounds' areas, and in general make sure 'nobody gets hurt' proactively.  Plots are the perview of the players, setting for the gamemaster.

But that's just what I like.

Fang Langford

p. s. Whenever I'm faced with the 'telepath problem,' I hit 'em with a surprise 'plot twist.'  No, it actually was a mystery the criminals are trying to solve too.  But then one of my credos is 'when all else fails, run an action scene.'

[Jeremy Cole]

Facilitator's good.  Its a clearer way of saying what I was thinking.

NB
Is it about time someone drew a list of the names given to the GM role over time?

It would be quite long.

[contracycle]

No, becuase then it would have to include "bastard" ;)