There is only players in RPG

[Marco]

But if you are going to maintain a traditional Gm/player split then treating the Gm as a more powerful player is not the way to go.

Simply put: Why? What should happen? Would the players revolt because of this sudden relevation? Would they quit acting in a mutual and respectfull manner towards the GM? Would his word count less because of it?
IMO not.

M

I think it's more of a case that the "traditional GM" (and I guess that's quite open to discussion as to what that is--clearly at it's most general it's a large super-set of roles that any specific group may use a sub-set of) is more than an "empowered player" in the way that term is commonly thought of here.

Ron's definition of a player with particular ... goals? objectives in play ... I think that's pretty good, really. I mean, the "what is a GM in the traditional game essay" would be many pages, mostly of caveats.

But let me put this in perspective:

When I play with GM's who really intrigue me, I approach the game with enthausium as though a favorite author of mine had written a new book I get to read (if at this point you are assuming that the games therefore must be railroaded or the 'plots' immutable or circumscribed, or whatever, that's not the case and even though I'm invoking printed text as a reference the intended analogy doesn't stretch that way).

However:

1. I'm interested in the Intellectual Property of the GM (that is to say unique situational elements).
2. I'm interested in experiencing the world from a cause-and-effect perspective.
3. I expect the GM to moderate as necessary--I don't want to police other players. Furthermore I expect the GM to be as impartial as is reasonably possible.
4. I expect to be "empowered" as a player (for some meanings of the term) even if my actions are at odds with the GM's preferences.
5. I (usually) bring my own IP (a bad term--what's a better one) to the game in reference to the parameters of character creation--I expect to be allowed to do that--but I also expect to not have to show up and be "on" for anything but my character and in-game-play.

In short, it's my expectation that the GM has done a certain part of the game design and set up and that I do a different part.

This really works well for me and has brought me a great love of role-playing in general and the sort of sophisticated techniques that the Forge discusses in specific.

Changing it--for the sake of changing it--makes no sense to me.

I guess my answer is "Why not."*

-Marco
* And certainly for some people--many here, I think--the answer will be that the 'traditional model' didn't give them what they were looking for. And that's a fine reason to experiement--however that perspective shouldn't be confused with a generality that most traditional groups are dysfunctional (IMO/IME).

[Tomas HVM]

Three great posts from Walt Freitag, "Minx" and Mike Holmes. Thank you!

Mike is writing on the powers we need to debate, and I have the feeling he has discussed these powers before. His talk of reapportionment of these powers is exactly what I'm aiming at. Maybe he has some general list over these powers, or know somewhere this is to be found? It would greatly help my thinking on the subject to have some overview.

Once again; it's nice to read other peoples wordings on concepts I'm playing with.

[Mike Holmes]

Mike is writing on the powers we need to debate, and I have the feeling he has discussed these powers before. His talk of reapportionment of these powers is exactly what I'm aiming at. Maybe he has some general list over these powers, or know somewhere this is to be found? It would greatly help my thinking on the subject to have some overview.

Well, Ralph and I are the posterchildren for this subject as we "discovered" during our creation of Universalis, that you could apportion out all the various authorities to all the players evenly. That's why we sometimes say there are no players in Universalis, only GMs.

The thing is that we did come to this conclusion by "paring down" the GMs authority bit by bit. At one point we were going to have a "first player" who's job was mainly to direct traffic in play. But, as Ron points out, we found that unneccessary, as someone just does that anyhow. It's still sometimes neccessary, but you just don't have to have any rules about it as it turns out. That player is like the guy who read the Monopoly rules and is teaching all the other players. He doesn't have any real authority to do anything, he's just given deference so that he can point out how things should go in terms of procedure.

In this thread we discussed the break up of the powers as seen by Rob for his game COTEC:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4303

I hope the link to his site still works.

At this site, I'm working with the designer on a simular split-up of powers with a little more hierarchy:
http://www.legendaryquest.com/

As mentioned, the big power that tends to be somewhat contentious, is generally referred to as Director Stance Authority. That's the power that's generally reserved for the GM in most games to create (narrate into existence) things beyond the actions of a PC. That is, if a player in most games is suddenly allowed, for example, to create an NPC out of thin air, that's Director Stance. To an extent this power is always available to players on a small scale, at least through tacit GM approval. Some games make uses more powerful or explicit. See The Pool for a classic example, or the use of Fate Points in FATE (www.faterpg.com) for something less defined.

This power is so broad that it can be divided up in myriad ways. For example, you can have different people responsible for plot and for setting. Different participants can even be given their own setting sections to deal with. The varios ways this could be apportioned are probably limitless, though I do think the number of practical or useful divisions is likely much less.

The other most identified power is as final arbiter. When a question of interpretation of the system comes up, the GM is usually the person who makes all final decisions on such matters.

Another power is on the more social level. As mentioned, the host certainly doesn't have to be the GM, and the host can have the social level responsibility to monitor social behavior (if on their property, they have the legal right to remove violators). Other social powers involve organizing session dates, times and locations. In many groups all this is handled on an ad hoc basis, and it works just fine.

I'm sure we can come up with other powers if we think about it.

Mike

[Sparky]

Okay - all persons who sit down to roleplay in the traditional manner are players in the same game. However, my role as a GM primarily deals with the overview of the game, while my players are primarily concerned with their own narrow (not the best word, sorry) outlook.

One thing that I would like to improve on is the amount of descriptive detail I provide the players. The truth is that I am too busy (keeping the appropriate pace and action to the tone while also keeping an eye on everyone's enjoyment and evening-out the participation) to be as effective at creating relevant details on the fly as I'd like.

That unintentionally came off a bit negative about my players, but the point really is that I think that the player who is the GM has a wildly different form of play than the players. What I think most GMs need is techniques that assist in their overview sort of play, as opposed to the vague advice usually given.

As a previous poster noted, non-GM players are usually given specific, concrete methods, tools and goals. Why is the GM left to flounder and figure it all out on his own? Is it just because most game designers are also usually the GMs in their groups?

Sparky

[M. J. Young]

The referral to earlier discussions is one comment very often given in this forum. I for one find it more interesting to discuss the theme myself, than to read discussions made by some eldritch guys (now dead, presumably) in some distant past...

Tomas, you've made reference to your desire to talk about this here instead of reading previous posts on it several times in this thread. Perhaps I can enlighten you by way of example.

I participate in a major way in the Christian Gamers Guild list. It's a mailing list type; although threads are archived, most discussion is current and no one knows how to find the old ones. It's interesting that the same subjects resurface periodically with new members. About every six months someone wants to challenge the notion that Christians can play games that include magic. Every nine months the issue of dark games like Unknown Armies and World of Darkness is raised. Once a year someone has to bring up game violence questions. Now, there are some of us who have been on this list for quite a few years. When these things arise, our first reaction is usually, not this again. Then we find ourselves repeating things we've said many times before, our mailboxes flooded with posts that are all too familiar, before anyone says anything at all new on the subject.

One of the ways this is handled on The Forge is by referencing previous threads. That is, when you come to the boards and say, "Let's talk about X", people will say, "Yes, X is a good subject; we've talked about it before here, here, and here. Please, let's all go read those threads if we haven't read them, review them briefly if we have, so that instead of having the same conversation over and over and over again we can start with the assumption that we're alreay familiar with what's been said before."

Thus tossing out the recommendation that you read the earlier posts is in essence saying, "I really don't care what anyone else has said on this subject, I want to say what I think and be the center of the current discussion." There's no reason you can't be the center of the current discussion; but there's no reason why you should expect all of us to write yet again what we've written before. We are showing you the courtesy of reading your posts and responding; please show us the courtesy of becoming familiar with what has already been said here.

Welcome to the Forge. Things are a bit different here.

--M. J. Young

[Tomas HVM]

please show us the courtesy of becoming familiar with what has already been said here.

I'm sorry the wordings mr Young quoted was a bit on the sour side. Read on, and you will understand why.

I do follow the links given to me in such discussions. The links are mostly given by people willing to discuss the theme further, and that's fine with me. I appreciate their effort to inform me of great ideas they've had before. And I'm a sucker for good ideas!

However; I consider it indiscrete, on the verge of bad taste, to rebuke anyone in a public forum. It is off topic, distracting and a nuisance. Most members (all?) of such a forum give their email in the profile, so it is easy to show some discretion.

This thread (or any thread) is not the place for postings like these, however interesting it is to read about mr Youngs experiences as a christian roleplayer (sincerely; it is).

Next time you feel compelled to tell someone the hows and whos of The Forge, please consider sending them an email.

If I stay in this forum, I will do my best to communicate my ideas, to discuss them in a civil manner, and show a professional attitude. I aim to contribute and be constructive when I take the time to participate in such discussions. I'm deeply engaged in RPG's, I strive to better myself as a gamesmith, and I'm always open for a good discussion on it.

[Valamir]

Actually Tomas, I think you'll find we have a fundamental difference in oppinion about public moderation here.  At the Forge it is common and considered prudent to do as much moderation as possible in the open and not in private.  Please don't think of it as being chastised or publically mocked.  But there are many good reasons to do this above board rather than in secret and in weighing between the two, by and large moderation issues are done pretty openly here.

Pretty much everyone on this list has been moderated at some point.  I don't think you can go down the memberlist of top posters and find anyone who hasn't had the guiding hand of the moderator decend on them at some point.  

It'll take some getting used to perhaps but its a system that's helped build a real solid community here.

[Mike Holmes]

If it's a question of proportion, I'm certainly one of the most moderated people on the site. :-)

To get back to the topic, however, I agree Sparky that in some cases GMs are left "to flounder". But it's a case-by-case basis. There are many games that do have a lot of advice at the very least.

But, yes, I think that tools in terms of mechanics aren't often forthcoming. I think that one of the benefits of disecting the GM role is that, if you want an empowered GM, looking at the parts of his authority is the place to start in creating new tools. For example, I'm a stickler for definitions of just how a GM's final authority can and should be used. Vague "GM option" ideas annoy me - it's like the author thinks they need to tell me to think. Thinking I can do on my own. What I'd like is tools to make the thought I put into the game more potent. One of the best ways is to eliminate ambiguity and present the rules as functionally as possible.

People seem to fear this. But, again, we're just presenting one way that works. GMs will, by their nature, modify rules to suit if they don't as presented (and don't have to be told to do so).

Mike