Empowerment and elements

[Ben Lehman]

I would just like to say that I'm finding this thread very interesting and it is informing some of my own design work in distributed power games.

For my own purposes, I have made the following divisions (not all of these are necessary for all games)--

Establish Goals (note that this is often not a GM position, but a "party leader" one)
Track in-game History
Establish pre-game History
Establish World-Scale pre-game setting
Establish Narrative Setting
Establish Tactical Setting (the system-wise whose, whats, and wheres.)
Play Incidental NPCs
Play Friendly NPCs
Play Antagonistic NPCs
Settle Disputes
Determine World Effects (of PC actions)
Keep Secrets

Note that a lot of these might be seen as "overlapping," and some of them might be split up.

Just thought I'd offer out my list for comparison.

yrs--
--Ben

[Tomas HVM]

Cool clarifications.

Thank you!

When using your power, can you use it to directly affect another player's character?
...
What does the player control in terms of his own character? What can other players do to that character with their powers?

This is an important question. I consider it a must to present an answer to this in every every game, either in the form of a rule, in a clearly communicated philosophy, or by positive examples.

At present I am not ready to make any statements about this for my game, but in earlier games I have given players philosophies on shifting borders of character-control, depending on the game, the situation, and the possible benefits for the drama. I've also given game masters in some of my RPG's, tools to effect their control over any chosen character, and to leave it more or less changed/shaken/fated in the hands of the player afterwards. Romance is one such game, where the GM may infect the character with LOVE TOO STRONG TO RESIST at any time, always with an object of love quite inappropriate for the character. It's been used to great effect...

I wrote:
Player A stated that he went to the tavern, not that he already was there. So player B was in his right to "beat him".

"Wait, you mean that I have to be so specific in every declaration that I have to say that I'm not only doing an action, but that it's also complete when done? That's ridiculous! You mean that if I declare that my character is going swimming that he's not actually in the water until I say he is. Instead he's just walking to the water if I say he's 'going'?"

The judge (being a wise old player) of course take this dialogue at the root, and exclaims that interaction always has presendence, so player B get's to interact with the stated action of player A.

Later the same evening player A states: "My character is eating his meal. Now he's done." (sticks out tongue at player B who can now not claim that he finishes first)

Player B: "I take his character's drink and throw it in his face."

Player A: "Ah, but I've finished my drink, it was part of my meal."

Player B: "But you didn't say it was part of your meal."

The Judge: "No, he did not, so once more player B is in his right. I think these two characters has started a vendetta now. Will they be able to solve it themselves, or must the other characters eventually have to solve it for them, or kick them out of the group?"

The Judge insist that A and B agree on an answer to his question, for the sake of the drama. Player A and player B looks at eachother. What will they do? We know: they will think on it, talk, and agree on an answer. And that's their first step in the direction of enjoying the character-vendetta.

That's me then, always an advocate for positive attitudes in people...

Succession of powers. If all current Judges are involved, then the Painter adjudicates. If he too, then the Dramatist. Etc.

Or, just trust the judge. IMO, that works just as well. We trust the GM, right?

Quite my thoughts on the subject, and both may function. I do prefer the simpler way of just trusting the judge, though. Coupled with the impact of positive examples and an engaging philosophy, the simple measures often are the best.

I wrote:
The threshold really lowers when players are able to use their lifelong abilities.

Agreed. So empower that. Enumerate how the players are so empowered to use these abilities. That's what the rules are for.

I'm a bit reluctant to use the phrases "rules" and "system". These are best suited to board games in my opinion, where the actions within the game are clearly defined. In relation to RPGs I prefer to talk of method, and phrasing the "conflict system" as one part of the method.

Sometimes I talk of rules, but then it is explicit rules, not to be broken by anyone. The rule against physical description of the aliens in Subsurian RPG, is one such rule.

It might be an idea to empower someone like "The Speaker" (master of dialogue and direct speach), but I'm afraid it will become one power too many, and maybe give the impression this is something you do not endorse in other roles and powers (not at all intended).

So I prefer to empower all players in relation to their innate abilities, and especially in regards to dialogue and spoken words. This is the very gist of roleplaying, and every player should have (more or less) full use of it.

I make it clear what abilities the players bring into the game, and try to show them how these abilities may be used to empower the game. I tell them how to use dialogue in the various phases of the game, and how to pretend to be a character, like they did as children. I tell my players the roleplaying is as easy as childrens play, and as complex as adults may wish it to be. Be serious about it, and play will be fun!

There's more to it, of course, but you catch my drift.

[Mike Holmes]

I think these are all functional choices. I don't agree with you on every point that some of what you claim are always best practices, however. For instance, Univeralis and SOAP both work by taking turns with formal rules for interrupting and the like. For these games, I think the format works well that way.  

But that's not to say that your methods won't work. Just that I think they're options amongst many viable solutions.

Also, rules, system, methods, it's all the same to me. The text gives the players a single vision for how play can be accomplished successfully. To that extent, I suggest that being thourough is of benefit. If it turns out that some "rule" or "method" is not to the liking of the group that plays, then they can change it (and will). But to not include a tool that might help most of the groups who play is an oversight, IMO.

Just something to think about.

Are you going to assemble all of this into one document at some point? Also, is this for a generic game? Or do you have some setting in mind for it?

Mike

[Tomas HVM]

I don't expect everybody to agree with me, as most of my choices are made agree according to my liking, not as an objective "better way". some of them may be a better way to reach certain goals. I do think I  make choices amongst many viable solutions.

Mike Holmes mention Univeralis, and this seem to be a game not quite up my alley, although I could imagine having fun with it (as I had great fun with Impro M'tu back in the early nineties). But the game may still work like the sun.

Are you going to assemble all of this into one document at some point? Also, is this for a generic game? Or do you have some setting in mind for it?

I'm toying with the idea for a game, posting some of it as I work on it, called Subsurian RPG, a futuristic game in some kind of low-key space-opera genre.

I'm gathering all and every point from this discussion, to work on it when I start toying with the method for that game. I'll come back to you then...

[Tomas HVM]

I would just like to say that I'm finding this thread very interesting and it is informing some of my own design work in distributed power games.

Agree with you; it is interesting.

What games are you talking about? Why do you distribute power in them, and how?

Ban Lehman also writes about the divisions (in tasks) he makes in his game (?). I found it interesting (being a bugger for lists), and wrote through it myself, changing it a bit (hope he don't mind). I split it in four sections, and ended up with something quite traditional in outlook:

Game master preparations:
Go through world
Go through local setting
Go through conflict system
Establish narrative modus

Player preparation:
Create/choose characters
Knit the group together
Establish individual goals
Establish group goals
Go through pre-game History
Delve into current setting and situation

Game master tasks:
Set the athmosphere
Play Friendly NPCs
Play Incidental NPCs
Play Antagonistic NPCs
Feed character relationships
Orchestrate and influence group
Choreograph conflicts and qualities
Determine consequences
Narrate consequences
Track in-game History

Player tasks:
Play character
Play group
Interact with NPCs
Evaluate developments
Make decisions
Take action

The split-up and the individual points in this list make sense to me.

OT:
I saw a film once, very good one, called something like "Questing the Nile". I expected an acventure film like "Romancing the Stone" or "Indiana Jones". What I got was a film based on real events, on two British expeditions searching for the outspring of the Nile.

That aside: in the film they come to a valley, and the valley had a king. They were granted audience with the king, and shortly before they were let into his presence, his second in command informed them: The king likes to talk in lists. The following "conversation" were hilarious, every part of it some sort of list. After that I've been an addict. I'd very much like to make a special day someday, were all of us would talk in lists...

And lists are very good tools in RPGs too. Not tables, but lists, mind you!

(a table and a list are two quite different things)