[Insurrection] GM Rewards

[MJGraham]

I'm working on an idea for my game where the both the players and the GM receives points for playing well. In return for winning these points players can make their characters more effective (nothing new there). But I've been thinking about what the GM should be able to do with his points. So far the only thing that springs to mind is allowing the GM to use the points to purchase hugely significant changes to the setting, e.g. to bring in a war or the death of a king the GM needs to have enough points.

I can see that if the GM is rewarded for playing well and the points he is awareded means something that it may encourage better GMing as defined by the participants. On the other hand it does feel like its restricting the GMs freedom to shape the setting of the game. Which I feel is pretty much countered by the fact that there is a pretty similar restriction on the players and how effective their character are within the game. Both prevent certain things from happening too soon, but as play progresses more freedom and more choices are present to all the participants.

Is the idea of rewarding good GMing and allowing the purchasing of significant events a terrible idea?

[Moreno R.]

I am all for rewarding the GM (they don't get enough of that) but I am not sure that having his "power" on the Shared imagined Space tied to that reward is a good idea, if the GM has not a character (at least) of his that can actually use these points for himself.

When you give points to a player, these can be a reward because they can be used to allow him to do more things, and because they are a validation of his play, a reassurance that he is playing "well"

The GM usually (in a "traditional" game) has not a character of his own, and these points don't really give him new things to, only more things, limiting his capacity to take care of the came. And having the reassurance for the GM tied to a resource that the players could use themselves is a little dangerous, in my opinion.

So, if you want to reward the GM, you should reward the PLAYER in the GM's role, with something that he would like to have.

It could work, if you make the game GM-less, or if you rotate at least some of the authorities of his role between players, so he can use the points he make as the GM when he is a player.

But don't let my criticism stop you: the fact that I don't see that working in the way you said doesn't mean that you could not make it work. I wanted only to suggest to you the GM-less and rotating GM options.

[MJGraham]

In my game the responsibility of being GM moves from participant to participant. One gaming session might have multiple GMs. Another sequence of gaming sessions may have the same one from beginning to end. Aside from using points as a a resource to introduce significant changes to the setting, I'm also toying with the idea of being able to use points to bid for the responsibility of becoming the GM.

Every participant has a character that can shift from being a player character to a non-player character and back again as the participants involvement with the game changes back and forth between player and GM.

When players are rewarded points its for roleplaying their characters well and for resolving conflicts with an element of risk. GMs receive points for good roleplaying but cannot receive any for placing their character at risk. This is because the GM's character cannot make any changes to the direction of the game, e.g. they can't save the day because that's the job of the players' characters. For something to constitute a risk it must do more than threaten the well-being of a character, it must have the potential to move the game in a new direction. Therefore instead of receiving points for resolving conflicts and placing their characters at risk GMs receive points for GMing well.

If I elect to simply allow GMs to use their points to make their characters more effective for when they revert to being players isn't there a disconnect between the actions undertaken to recieve the point and the way the points can be used?

I want the points that the GM receives to be a message to the GM from the other participants that they like what he is doing and they want him to continue doing it. I want the point received by the GM to say that he's a great GM and deserves to be given something that reflects that.

[Moreno R.]

Hi!

From what you say, I think your is more a "GM-full" (in the sense that all the players share the authority over the game, even if not at the same time) game than a game with rotating GM.  So please discard what I said about saving the points for when the GM was a player again. I was referring to the latter case.

The crucial difference is that a "traditional" GM (even with the many differences from game group to game group) need a lot more "free hand" in the use of his authority to run the game. But if you design your game avoiding the need for such a "heavy GM hand", yes, I think you can tie the changes that the GM can do to the SIS to the points the players give him.

The only thing that seem problematic to me is the player's action that can get them points. You talk about "good roleplaying" for all the players and "resolving conflicts with an element of risk" for the players that aren't the GM in the conflict. Both are rewards for the player's skills, and I think they could foster a kind of role-playing where everybody try to get more points for himself, rather at odds with the necessity of awarding them to other. Do you want to make a kind of "competitive" game like Rune or you would like to make a game where the objective of play is different?

Remember, while you read this, that I am not a game designer, so take everything I say with a grain of salt.  I am asking these question as a player, thinking about what could interest me in a game like this, but I would not trust myself any "gamecraft advice" from me...

[Callan S.]

I think it's a great idea - but that's in the context that I'm seeing it.

Most exchanges between GM and players are like hagglers at a market - they work on a price that both can agree on.

I think these points are great, relative to how they give the GM something new he can haggle with "I want this change in the world - I have X points to offer for it". So I think it'd be good if the GM offers a number of points for the change and the players haggle over it with him. However, if your interested in this, you need a side haggle just incase both parties can't come to any arrangement. If you want to know more, I'm happy to add it

Also I think it'd be neat if rather than just changing the game world, the GM could also buy scene framing "I want a scene where your caught lovemaking with the mayors daughter!" Player rolls eyes "I'll spend 100 points" Player starts to think about it and how much it'll cost the GM!

[MJGraham]

Hi!

From what you say, I think your is more a "GM-full" (in the sense that all the players share the authority over the game, even if not at the same time) game than a game with rotating GM.  So please discard what I said about saving the points for when the GM was a player again. I was referring to the latter case.

The crucial difference is that a "traditional" GM (even with the many differences from game group to game group) need a lot more "free hand" in the use of his authority to run the game. But if you design your game avoiding the need for such a "heavy GM hand", yes, I think you can tie the changes that the GM can do to the SIS to the points the players give him.

The only thing that seem problematic to me is the player's action that can get them points. You talk about "good roleplaying" for all the players and "resolving conflicts with an element of risk" for the players that aren't the GM in the conflict. Both are rewards for the player's skills, and I think they could foster a kind of role-playing where everybody try to get more points for himself, rather at odds with the necessity of awarding them to other. Do you want to make a kind of "competitive" game like Rune or you would like to make a game where the objective of play is different?

Remember, while you read this, that I am not a game designer, so take everything I say with a grain of salt.  I am asking these question as a player, thinking about what could interest me in a game like this, but I would not trust myself any "gamecraft advice" from me...

I haven 't played Rune so my answer may not relate to what you're asking. Nevertheless I'll give it a shot...

Each participant is responsible for giving and witholding points in the game. A selfish participant may soon find points being held back if he chooses to never give out points to other participants. I'm hoping that it will encourage a kind of reciprocation between participants or a tit for tat strategy in the giving and withholding of points with the intent that an equilibrium between over generosity and stinginess will be reached between the participants. Its really difficult for participant A to compete against participant B and C for points when B and C are the ones who will give A points.

In any game the amount of points that can be given to participants by participants is finite. Participants who wish to enjoy an easy game can elect to have a larger available pool of points to draw from. Those who want a more challenging game can choose a smaller amount. One of the ideas behind having finite points is that it tells the GM the pace at which threats and challenges should become more difficult to resolve in a way that satisfactory to the characters. It helps to think of it as a curve on a graph. When participants give away a lot of points very quickly they are effectively not only saying that those who have been awarded are playing the game well but that they expect things to become more challenge very soon. A skilled GM should be able to look at the remaining points available in any game and know exactly what kind of challenges should be presented to the players at that precise moment in the game. I suppose it's a way of setting the pace of the game. Excessive liberality with giving points is difficult when there are a finite amount of points in any game and the rate at which they are given is matched by the rate at which the game becomes more difficult for players and characters alike.

Another important thing regarding these points are that they are only temporary. Upon the conclusion of any game all particpants lose the points they have earned. In good ol' D&D terms it would be like levelling up during an adventure and then finding your character back at level one at the beginning of the next one. Another way that all points are lost at the end of every game a percentage, fraction, or set amount of points are always lost at around two thirds the way into any game. This is called the Moment of Crisis and is suppose to represent the point in a novel or film where the protagonists are beaten by the antagonist or circumstances. Think of the end of Empire Strikes Back in the original Starwars trilogy and you'll have an idea of what the Moment of Crisis should be. I mention this because points are not resources which can be banked. They may at certain moments indicate one participant is better or luckier than another, but in the long term it can never be an effective way of demonstrating that Participant A is better than Participant B.

Making points temporary is my way of trying to move players focus away from thinking about character improvement and instead concentrate on character development. By this I mean that I want players to not think of what their characters can do but to consider instead what kind of person they can become.

It is my hope that by encouraging reciprocity, limiting the amount of points, and making them temporary that it will dissuade participants from clambering over one another in an attempt to amass more points than their fellow gamers. Not that I believe you can get rid of competition altogether or that it would make a better game if it was completely eradicated. But I would like to think that people playing my game will be to compete against the game itself rather than one another. 

I think it's a great idea - but that's in the context that I'm seeing it.

Most exchanges between GM and players are like hagglers at a market - they work on a price that both can agree on.

I think these points are great, relative to how they give the GM something new he can haggle with "I want this change in the world - I have X points to offer for it". So I think it'd be good if the GM offers a number of points for the change and the players haggle over it with him. However, if your interested in this, you need a side haggle just incase both parties can't come to any arrangement. If you want to know more, I'm happy to add it

Also I think it'd be neat if rather than just changing the game world, the GM could also buy scene framing "I want a scene where your caught lovemaking with the mayors daughter!" Player rolls eyes "I'll spend 100 points" Player starts to think about it and how much it'll cost the GM!

I really like the idea of haggling for scene framing. But I'm worried that it might be used to ursurp the players sovereignty over their characters. Which makes me think that instead of haggling for scene framing, the narrator can buy it from a player willing, "I'll give you 100 of my own points if you let your character get caught lovemaking with the mayor's daughter." The player can accept the offer, reject the offer, or haggle for a better price. "My character will do it but I want 150."

[Callan S.]

That's basically what I'm saying and that's why I noted the need for a side haggle. Essentially play dies in the arse if both parties say no - I think that's why your looking for a willing player to begin with. But on the other hand, if player and GM don't match up (ie, player is willing but GM has no scene, or GM has a scene in mind but player isn't willing), play still dies.

That's why I noted the side haggle - this is a basic one, which I'd suggest is entirely mechanical. So say the GM wants that scene and the player just flat out says no - do we sit and stare at each other, wondering where play can go now, or if it can go anywhere at all? Well if you prepare some mechanics which player or GM can use to 'buy' the next scene of play at a pre set cost, then that haggles already worked out. This could be small fry stuff, like buying an encounter with seedy low level thugs in an alley, which are relatively easy to defeat. Important, the cost is pre set - no haggle here - if you have the points, you can just buy it (but remember, both player and GM know the rules so they've both agreed in some small way to this exchange). Sure, it's not massive, but it keeps the game rolling by getting an agreement to occur and events to roll on. Rough example though - hope you can fill in some of the blanks to see it more clearly.

[David Artman]

*cough* Universalis *cough*

Seriously, though, Universalis's Coin spending pretty much does exactly what you want. Folks bid for "GM power" (narration control) from their Coins, and if you introduce something cool, folks tend to put more Coins into it. Folks can use Coins to take control of any and all elements introduced in a scene, effectively making everyone a GM, a PC, and NPCs.

Add a Fan Mail Gimmick for gaining Coins (above and beyond refreshing), and you'd have the game you are describing. But it might not even need it, because (as I mention above) the things you "care about" (i.e. introduce and put Coins into) are basically "ratified" by others putting more Coins into them and interweaving them with other elements. Fan Mail might just be a form of "here, spend these Coins as you see fit, because you're coming up with cooler stuff than I am." That actually happens all the time in normal play, during Challenges.

Not saying you can't find a new angle, a new flavor, or a different game to do this stuff. I just thought you might want to look at a published, well supported game that seems to do 95% of what you are describing. Biggest difference: there's not a "My Guy" (i.e. individual PC for each player) in Universalis.... except for when someone take a shine to a character or element and routinely overbids, so that he or she always controls it.

HTH;
David

[MJGraham]

That's basically what I'm saying and that's why I noted the need for a side haggle. Essentially play dies in the arse if both parties say no - I think that's why your looking for a willing player to begin with. But on the other hand, if player and GM don't match up (ie, player is willing but GM has no scene, or GM has a scene in mind but player isn't willing), play still dies.

That's why I noted the side haggle - this is a basic one, which I'd suggest is entirely mechanical. So say the GM wants that scene and the player just flat out says no - do we sit and stare at each other, wondering where play can go now, or if it can go anywhere at all? Well if you prepare some mechanics which player or GM can use to 'buy' the next scene of play at a pre set cost, then that haggles already worked out. This could be small fry stuff, like buying an encounter with seedy low level thugs in an alley, which are relatively easy to defeat. Important, the cost is pre set - no haggle here - if you have the points, you can just buy it (but remember, both player and GM know the rules so they've both agreed in some small way to this exchange). Sure, it's not massive, but it keeps the game rolling by getting an agreement to occur and events to roll on. Rough example though - hope you can fill in some of the blanks to see it more clearly.

I misunderstood you and thought you meant that the player would have to outbid the GM to maintain control of his character.

*cough* Universalis *cough*

Seriously, though, Universalis's Coin spending pretty much does exactly what you want. Folks bid for "GM power" (narration control) from their Coins, and if you introduce something cool, folks tend to put more Coins into it. Folks can use Coins to take control of any and all elements introduced in a scene, effectively making everyone a GM, a PC, and NPCs.

Add a Fan Mail Gimmick for gaining Coins (above and beyond refreshing), and you'd have the game you are describing. But it might not even need it, because (as I mention above) the things you "care about" (i.e. introduce and put Coins into) are basically "ratified" by others putting more Coins into them and interweaving them with other elements. Fan Mail might just be a form of "here, spend these Coins as you see fit, because you're coming up with cooler stuff than I am." That actually happens all the time in normal play, during Challenges.

Not saying you can't find a new angle, a new flavor, or a different game to do this stuff. I just thought you might want to look at a published, well supported game that seems to do 95% of what you are describing. Biggest difference: there's not a "My Guy" (i.e. individual PC for each player) in Universalis.... except for when someone take a shine to a character or element and routinely overbids, so that he or she always controls it.

HTH;
David

I'm only familiar with Universalis through reading a few reviews. I like the sound of it and I'll be buying it (along with Dogs in the Vineyard) this weekend.

I'm not particularly worried about treading old ground as long as I can walk it in a new way. Not that I was ever under any illusion that I was being original. At one point I thought my idea of making skills and attributes pure colour I think that's the correct term) for players descriptions of their characters actions. (A player who says his character is strong or a talented diplomat is making a promise to the other participants about how the player will describe the way in which his character will approach certain obstacles but it won't give the player any bonuses to his chance of succeeding). And making moods/temperament/disposition the factor in resolving challenges. (Is the character angry enough?). But the more I learn the more unoriginal I realize my ideas happen to be. Nevertheless I keep plodding along in the (vain) hope that I'll accidentally manage to be completely original somewhere in my game rather than just approaching a collection of tried and tested ideas in an new way.

As for fanmail, I've not come across the term here before so I'm going to do use the search function and do a little research.

[David Artman]

Fan Mail is in Primetime Adventures, by Dog Eared Designs.

[MJGraham]

Thanks, David. Hopefully, I'll see if I can get hold of a copy of the game.

[David C]

Instead of allowing the GM to progress a timeline, why not give the GM the power to introduce elements that deter the players. For example, for 5 units, the GM can curse a player so they can't leave an area until they complete a side quest. For 10 units, the GM gets to add a nemesis/assassin type character that hunts the party. For 15 units, the enemy sends a lieutenant to deal with the aspiring adventurers. For 20 units, the local city guard is bribed into arresting the characters for treason. Things like that.