*
*
Home
Help
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 05, 2014, 02:13:17 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Forum changes: Editing of posts has been turned off until further notice.
Search:     Advanced search
275647 Posts in 27717 Topics by 4283 Members Latest Member: - otto Most online today: 55 - most online ever: 429 (November 03, 2007, 04:35:43 AM)
Pages: 1 [2]
Print
Author Topic: Gamism not for Game masters?  (Read 2751 times)
komradebob
Member

Posts: 462


« Reply #15 on: April 21, 2005, 08:13:41 AM »

Hmm. If you're making a game that is mostly meant to be played as one-shots AND there are rotating gamemaster possibilities, you might consider a reward system that rewards the http://players, rather than their characters. If the same reward system is used for both the players and the gm, and the reward currency transfers with the player to new characters or a session as gm, you could have a very gamist game indeed.
Logged

Robert Earley-Clark

currently developing:The Village Game:Family storytelling with toys
Walt Freitag
Member

Posts: 1039


« Reply #16 on: April 24, 2005, 09:14:57 PM »

Sven, and 1of3, you might both want to check out this thread which examined a similar issue. There seemed to be consensus at the time that gamist participation by a GM (referred to in that thread as the "esteem game") was quite possible, and quite common, with or without specific rules bringing it to the fore. That is, a GM can indeed "compete" with players despite having seemingly unlimited resources within the game. The key is understanding what the GM's socially understood victory and defeat conditons really are. If you think about real players' real reactions in play, it's clear that in the vast majority of cases, a GM victory is not a total party kill, and a hard-fought success by the player-characters is not a GM defeat.

Sven's prescription of "hard but not impossible" is the crux of it. I've likened this form of GM competition to a game of Blackjack -- or Chicken. You get cred for verging as close as possible to the threshold of disaster without going past it.

- Walt
Logged

Wandering in the diasporosphere
Stefan / 1of3
Member

Posts: 88


« Reply #17 on: April 25, 2005, 10:21:19 AM »

Intriguing.

What about that:

Normally the GM does not only create and controll the antagonists, but also controlls parts of setting, that are important in the conflict.

- The GM can grant the allies, clues and equipment - or deny them.
- The GM can use the environment against the players.
- The GM can attack, whenever he wants. (The PCs have to approach the antagonists first. Enemies do just appear.)

Before the session starts players and GM can spent points to controll these aspects.
That not only limits the the GM's power, but also helps to shape the session. If the players spend all their points for allies, the game might be about helping in defending a fortress.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2]
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Oxygen design by Bloc
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!