The GM as safety net

[Graham W]

This is an idea that's currently interesting me. I'm hoping you guys will kick it around and tell me a. Whether it might work, b. Whether it's hopelessly naive and c. Whether it's all been discussed before.

In many narrative-based games, I would like to give the GM the power to edit whatever the players narrate. That is, he can say no to something the players narrate:

Player: "My character calls down the power of the Ultimate God. The world ends in a clap of thunder."
GM: "It can't end yet, Tony, we've only been playing five minutes."

Or he can revise what somebody else narrated:

GM: "Shall we say that those three PCs didn't die - they're just in a coma?"

In other words, the GM uses his editing power to keep the story on track and throw out narration that would derail the story.

So far, I think this has all been said before (it's a variation on GM-as-director, I believe).

But there's a very specific idea here: that giving the GM this power gives the players the freedom to take risks when narrating.

In other words, the players can cut loose and narrate whatever they feel like - killing other PCs, ending the world, travelling to a parallel universe - secure in the knowledge that they're not going to screw up the storyline. Because, if the narration is likely to throw the whole storyline off track, the GM can step in and change what was narrated.

(Credit where it's due: I should point out that I've stolen this idea from comedy improvisation, and specifically a theatre game by Keith Johnstone called "Maestro")

As you can tell, this idea is only half-formed and I'd appreciate any criticism. Do you think this is a valuable idea? Is it just a variation on something that's been said before? How could I encourage this kind of relationship between GM and players?

Thanks in advance for any help.

Graham

[lumpley]

You oughta check out Polaris. Its key phrases do exactly what you describe.

-Vincent

[Halzebier]

In many narrative-based games, I would like to give the GM the power to edit whatever the players narrate. That is, he can say no to something the players narrate:

Player: "My character calls down the power of the Ultimate God. The world ends in a clap of thunder."
GM: "It can't end yet, Tony, we've only been playing five minutes."

In my (limited) experience, this just doesn't happen. I've recently run The Pool for the first time and was worried about the exact same thing because the rules potentially give a huge amount of directorial power to the players. The thing is, however, that any abuse would immediately be recognized *exactly* for what it is by everyone around the table. So it does not happen.

In other words, the GM uses his editing power to keep the story on track and throw out narration that would derail the story.

You are assuming that the GM has a pre-fabricated plot. That's a viable way to play, but there are other options.

(I'm just mentioning this because you used the term "narrative". A slightly different term, "narrativism", has a very specific meaning on this board and is incompatible with a pre-fabricated story which must be kept on track. Check out "Narrativism - Story Now" in the Articles section at the top of the page, if you're interested.)

But there's a very specific idea here: that giving the GM this power gives the players the freedom to take risks when narrating.

In other words, the players can cut loose and narrate whatever they feel like - killing other PCs, ending the world, travelling to a parallel universe - secure in the knowledge that they're not going to screw up the storyline. Because, if the narration is likely to throw the whole storyline off track, the GM can step in and change what was narrated.

When playing in such a way (i.e. having a story to keep on track as a GM), I've found that it is indeed, as you suggest (if I'm reading you right), better to be upfront about it.

For instance, I'd rather admit to a player that his 20th level Ninjamaster PC is getting his pockets picked for the good of the plot than break the rules (e.g. by fudging the thief's die roll or making the thief 20th level as well).

Similarly, I could imagine myself telling the player that, yes, his fireball should have killed those three NPCs, but, sorry, they had to survive for the good of the plot. And then, I might work on some sort of explanation or compensation. Maybe the player would get some of his spell points back (and we'd assume he had cast a weak fireball instead) or I'd rule that at least the NPCs got horribly scarred (even though there are no scarring rules) etc.

(In fact, one of our GMs has done more or less both of the above: He explained how, against all odds, an NPC stole an item the PCs tried to protect at all costs - the pre-fabricated adventure was about the party's pursuit of the item - and he ruled that the PCs had *not* used-up a very valuable one-shot item in trying to prevent the theft.)

Regards,

Hal

[Graham W]

You are assuming that the GM has a pre-fabricated plot.

My fault for not explaining well enough.

I'm not assuming that the GM has a pre-fabricated plot. What I'm suggesting is that there are certain things that can blow a story wide open - destroying the world in the first few minutes, interrupting a tense moment with a comedy schtick, narrating something that contradicts something that went before. Any of those things can derail a story, in such a way that the story never quite recovers (i.e. it's never quite as satisfying again for any the players).

Those things are easy to narrate in the heat of the moment but they can seriously spoil a story. What I'm suggesting is that an appropriate role for the GM is to edit out those moments.

[lumpley]

I hate to be an insistent prick - well the truth is that I do it infrequently enough that I kind of enjoy it when I get the chance - but seriously, this conversation is made obsolete by Polaris. If you're really interested in the subject, you're interested in Polaris, and your first step is to familiarize yourself with the game.

-Vincent

[Graham W]

I hate to be an insistent prick - well the truth is that I do it infrequently enough that I kind of enjoy it when I get the chance - but seriously, this conversation is made obsolete by Polaris. If you're really interested in the subject, you're interested in Polaris, and your first step is to familiarize yourself with the game.

Fair enough. I'll check it out and thanks for insisting.

Graham

[TonyLB]

Player: "My character calls down the power of the Ultimate God. The world ends in a clap of thunder."

Can I just go on record as saying that I think this is a great way to open a game?  There are so many terrific places to set the next scene:  a generational escape star-ship, flashbacks to the 1920s, the afterlife, an exalted dreamtime... woohoo!

So, yes, I agree that the veto power of the GM can be a wonderful safety net.  But you can also run a game where, when people do incredibly cool, world-shaking things you get stoked about the possibilities and work from there.  Just sayin'

[Darren Hill]

Another approach: I'd say the appropriate place to catch thius kind of game-ending narration is before it is made, not after.
In Trollbabe, and Stranger Things, players and GM swap narration rights based on who succeeds or fails, but before any narration is made there is a stage called "Free and Clear", where the players and GM discuss - what the conflict is about, what sort of things might happen, and more importantly, what sort of things can not happen.
Basically, before either the player or GM gets to narrate a resolution to a conflictm, they have learned what sort of narration is permissible, so you don't neither can be upset with the narration that does occur.
It seemed an alien step to me, the first time I tried it, but it has become very natural and I've started using it in all my other games.

[Callan S.]

Hi Tony,

I think the problem may be when the player says it in a "The world ends. There, I'm done, now entertain me!"

If I have no interest in the world ending, if I feel no excitement about that, then I'm not able to entertain anyone.

I think rather than the suggested safety net, the GM should be able to instead say "I aint got nuthin' for that. YOU entertain ME!"

That'd stop players from adding stupid stuff and expecting the GM to mint it into gaming gold.

[Sven Seeland]

My question would be, what would make the GM specially suited for being a safety net? What can s/he do that no one else can do?

I'm having some problems getting my thoughts out in a coherent manner but please bear with me.

From what you posted I gather that players have some power to influence the story. Thus I would say that their input is a pretty decent indicator of what they want. The question to ask would not be "How can we prevent this player from ending the world?" but rather "Why does that player want to end the world?"
There are several possible answer to that latter question.
a) He's being an idiot and wants to derail the game on purpose.
b) He has some interest in playing a pot-apocalyptic game (just as Tony proposed)

In case the answer is a), then, well, that's not a gaming problem, it's a social problem. Maybe he doesn't like the game you're playing, maybe he doesn't like roleplaying or has some problems with another player and uses the game to get back at them. This isn't something that rules should be accounting for in my oppinion. You need to talk to that guy, something along the lines of "Hey, why are you derailing the game?" You either work it out or stop playing that game together.

In case the answer is b), the player didn't want to derail the game but just thought it to be cool to have the world end (or whatever). In this case you have most likely a mismatch of creative agendas. If he is the only one who wants the world to end than he probably isn't in line with the other people around the table, which needs to be worked out as well. However, there is no real need for a central "judge" of some sort. If one player doesn't want the world to happen things can be discussed there and then.
Tom: "Hey, why did you just explode the world?"
John: "Because it's fun! Look, now we can flee on this spaceship and be space-nomads looking for a new home!"
Tom: "But I don't want to play this"
Jane: "Me neither, let's keep playing as before"
Sarah: "Yea, let's keep playing as before."
Tom: "Alright, I'm overruled. So the world doesn't explode then..."

Barring my obvious dialogue writing skills, what's so wrong with that?

I hope you get my central point: You don't need a GM to work out social problems. Either you have a problem with the player or you have a problem with mismatched creative agendas. If neither is the case, I don't see a reason why you simply shouldn't just accept the situation and roll with it.

If you are aiming for a GM controlled, more or less prewritten plot however, that's a whole new bag of beans...

[contracycle]

In case the answer is a), then, well, that's not a gaming problem, it's a social problem. Maybe he doesn't like the game you're playing, maybe he doesn't like roleplaying or has some problems with another player and uses the game to get back at them. This isn't something that rules should be accounting for in my oppinion. You need to talk to that guy, something along the lines of "Hey, why are you derailing the game?" You either work it out or stop playing that game together.

And for exactly that reason, we simply don't need to address this notional problem.  What do you think happens, games are comnposed of a random sampling of the public?  Or I invite people with whom I actively do not get along and give them the opportunity to wreck one of my recreational activities?  I'm afraid its a nonsense moral criticism of a scenario that simply never happens; the only issue we have to concern ourselves with is that of well meaning people doing it by accident or through misunderstanding.

If you are aiming for a GM controlled, more or less prewritten plot however, that's a whole new bag of beans...

And that looks dangerously like a slander of the motive for asking a question in the first place.  Desiring to prevent the derailment of the game is not tantamount to wanting it to run on rails.

[Sven Seeland]

If you are aiming for a GM controlled, more or less prewritten plot however, that's a whole new bag of beans...

And that looks dangerously like a slander of the motive for asking a question in the first place.  Desiring to prevent the derailment of the game is not tantamount to wanting it to run on rails.

This was definately not meant as such. I do have the problem of not being a native English speaker and therefore some things I want to express come across differently from what I intendet.

I just meant to say that my post was mainly being written for GM-less or GM-light games with lots of controll on the side of the players and that the advice doesn't necesarily directly apply to (functional) illusionist games where player input wasn't really wanted in the first place. Of course, if you don't want the players to have a considerable amount of input on the plot (which is perfectly fine) you can forget all of my writings in the above post since they don't apply. That's all I wanted to say with that line.

[contracycle]

My apologies

[Sven Seeland]

No hard feelings on my side. Things like these can happen when crossing the language barrier, especially on a medium like internet fora (forums?) where communication is completely in written form and individual nuances and details get lost easily.

[Clyde L. Rhoer]

I think that you can also design a mechanic to allow players to challenge a player that that they feel has gone too far, if you feel this is a concern for a game you are creating. This perhaps could help to ease some of the tension of a nonscripted freeform challenge, especially amongst people whom may not know each other, or each others comfort areas.

Otherwise you can roll with the narrative as Tony suggests, or engage in an adult discussion as Sven suggests.