*
*
Home
Help
Login
Register
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
September 19, 2014, 11:59:24 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: 69 - most online ever: 429 (November 03, 2007, 04:35:43 AM)
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
Print
Author Topic: Narrativist GMs: How do you have fun?  (Read 10734 times)
Blake Hutchins
Member

Posts: 614


« Reply #30 on: June 10, 2002, 12:15:03 PM »

Hey, a quick note to say Ron's on the money, as was Fang's "Whoops."  My main point was to point at the line of reasoning I saw developed in Jeff's post.  It's not my thinking, and it's certainly not meant to be exclusive.

Best,

Blake
Logged
Jaif
Member

Posts: 327


« Reply #31 on: June 10, 2002, 01:40:54 PM »

Quote
What I agree on is that too much directorial stance = a lonely, useless GM.


Yeah, and I tend to wonder how much is "too much".  It seems to me that this is a point easily reached once players start dabbling outside of their characters.  There's only so much time in a game session, and a few sharp twists is going to confine the GM to reaction mode pretty quickly.

I do have to ask - are any of you out there regular GMs of campaigns where the players have a large amount of directoral control?  I'm not talking one-shots here, I'm talking at least (let's make up a number) once a month sessions in a regular campaign.

If so, can you give me your impressions, specifically, what parts for you are fun?

-Jeff
Logged
Valamir
Member

Posts: 5574


WWW
« Reply #32 on: June 10, 2002, 02:00:33 PM »

Quote from: Jaif

If so, can you give me your impressions, specifically, what parts for you are fun?


I'm sure there are a few folks who can chime in here.

Perhaps you can provide the opposite side with what specifically you don't think is fun.

There seems to be a "GM loses total control = not fun" theme going through your posts that I'm not sure if you intend it to be there or what it is that has you fearful that shared power = not fun for GM.

Perhaps if you start by cataloging what you find fun about being a GM and then noting which of those things you're afraid you'll miss...

I fully agree with the sentiment that shared power is not everyones cup of tea (not even every players) but I've never heard it phrased as being not "fun" before.
Logged

Mike Holmes
Acts of Evil Playtesters
Member

Posts: 10459


« Reply #33 on: June 10, 2002, 02:10:35 PM »

Quote from: Jaif
I do have to ask - are any of you out there regular GMs of campaigns where the players have a large amount of directoral control?  I'm not talking one-shots here, I'm talking at least (let's make up a number) once a month sessions in a regular campaign.


Have you read the Freeform thread yet? Lots of people play with no rules at all regarding who can create what, or just ones like "don't mess with anyone elses characters". This works just fine, usually nobody has a problem, and for the most part it's fun. I think these people cover your request for descriptions of regular heavy directorial play best; Lance? Henry?

On the other end of the spectrum I am aware of people who play with a GM who has almost total power, including playing the player's characters for them, essentially, making them next to spectators. And you know what? They have fun too, players and GMs.

I can see no point at which a particular division of power is inherently more fun than another. Sure for individuals, there may be a level at which the division is optimal. But a priori, I don't believe that any level is superior to any other.

Mike
Logged

Member of Indie Netgaming
-Get your indie game fix online.
jburneko
Member

Posts: 1351


« Reply #34 on: June 10, 2002, 02:30:57 PM »

Hello Jeff,

I don't know if my game counts as having a LOT of Director Stance but in general I encourage my players to create things that are either natural extensions of their environment or help color and enhance the immediate scene.  

For example, I have no problem if a player wants to go visit a cousin that they've never mentioned to me before.  I'm simply asking them for details about this cousin and then roleplay the new-NPC as if I'd created him myself using the player's descriptions as  guideline.  Relatives and such are a natural extention of a character concept.  Anything that is a natural extention of the character concept the players are free to introduce.

Also, I don't get myself boged down in the technical details of scenes.  I don't draw maps and I don't use minitures for fights.  If a player wants to pull a fire hose off the wall and hose down the enemy.  I say, GO FOR IT.  If the player wants to have something at his disposal or whatever in the current environment and it isn't TOO far fetched that it would be there, then I don't sweat the details.  

My players still haven't really gotten used to this idea, yet.  Just yesterday they wanted to steal some survalience equipment from some kind of electronic store.  "I said, okay."  They then proceeded to outline in great gory detail for me:

A) How they did this.

B) What EXACTLY they were taking.  Asking me for permission after each and every single item.

This kind of stuff bores me to tears.  Survaillence equipment.  Camera, radios, walkie-talkies, etc, etc, etc, I get it.  Move on.  I'm not going to nit pick over the details.

Now usually when I tell people this they tell me I'm making it too "easy" on the players.  But the logistics of objective achievement aren't what my games are about.  At least they ceased to be as soon as I learned about this much more interesting thing called a Narrativist Premise.  Premise, really boils down to the game being about moral and ethical dillemas.

I'm not interested in whether the players can find out X information and uncover this fiendish plot and defeat that particular villain.  My games are WAY WAY greyer than that.  In fact by making sure the players have all the resources and what not at their disposal, serves two functions.

1) It fulfills the player's fantasies about whatever it is they're thinking about.  In the case of yesterday's game it was being spy like and hanging out in vans watching the "bad guys" undetected ala Sneakers.

2) It frees me up to focus on making the information gained through and consequences of actions taken by the players have heavy dramatic punch.  I WANT them to have the information they're trying to get because that information is only going to make their further choices more difficult form a moral or ethical stand-point.

In my games there may very well be a villain with a fiendish plot to thwart however, doing so doesn't solve the PCs problems.  

Example,

I'm currently running Werewolf for my group.  I don't know how familiar you are with the game but there's this concept of the Kinfolk.  Kinfolk are humans who carry the Werewolf "gene" but are not Werewolves themselves.  I guess you could say the major "villain" in my game is a company called Magadon.  Magadon has invented a virus that infects kinfolk and insures that any offspring they have will turn into insane, evil Black Spiral Werewolves.

I don't care HOW they find out about this virus or what they choose to do about Magadon.  I'm assuming at some point their will be a raid or a crackdown or something.  What happens to Magadon and it's fiendish plot really aren't what interests me.  The players can use ALL the director stance they want achieveing these "Search and Destroy" elements of the game.  It yeilds fun actions sequences and fulfiles the player's "Badass" fantasies.  What really interests me are these points:

1) Magadon has already bred 8 of these infected Werewolves all of whom are still under the age of 12 and haven't undergone "The Change" yet.  My players have rescued these children (discovered through their surveillance efforts) but do not yet know about the virus.  As such I'm really playing up the "inocense" of these children.  The youngest, a six year old, has already latched onto one player calling her "mommy."  When the players find out that these children are destined to become destructive forces of evil are they REALLY going to just take them out back and kill them all?

I don't know.  I don't have a preplanned expected response.  The joy for me as a GM comes in the posing of the question and watching the players derive an answer.

2) On a slightly more personal note one of the player's character's mother is Kinfolk and she is infected with this virus... and pregnant.  Now what?

For the record I don't consider my group to play in a full on "focused" Narrativist fashion.  I consider my game to be a fairly functional Narrativist-Simulationist blend when considered from global, "how does this group play."  However, I think that *I* personally make fairly Narrativist decisions as a GM.

Again, I don't know if this counts as LARGE amounts of Director Stance but I do encourage Director Stance on a immediate scene by scene basis.

Jesse
Logged
Jaif
Member

Posts: 327


« Reply #35 on: June 10, 2002, 03:26:02 PM »

Valamir, I've stated a number of times in this thread what I don't think is fun.  My intitial question, bolded, summarized most of it: "When you give up the control and power of creation, what's left for a N-GM but menial labor, and what fun is that?" People have since pointed out to me that my question presupposes that a GM gives up *all* control, which is a fallacy for most games.  I'm still dubious that much directoral power can be handed out to the players w/o pushing the GM to the status of menial labor, but I recognize and understand the other position better now.

As for what I think is fun about being a traditional GM, I stated that as well in the opening paragraph: "...it's creating something, and watching that creation in action. There's most certainly a control-side to it as well."

Mike, and others: when I say something is "fun", in the end I do mean "for me".  I'm grown up enough to understand that my choice of fun doesn't apply to everyone around me.  That won't stop me from being curious as to what or how someone else finds or derives fun, and I think that curiosity isn't a bad thing.  Also, Ron wrote something in one of those threads he pointed me to, and it actually is important here even though the context is different.  We're talking about my mind, and that isn't a fair place.  It's full of misinformed notions and summary judgements.  I like to think, though, that I'm doing some good here by putting them down in a thread and giving people an opportunity to disabuse me of my notions and judgements.

Jesse,
Quote
The joy for me as a GM comes in the posing of the question and watching the players derive an answer.

I find that fascinating; something else for me to mull over.  Thanks for the response.

-Jeff
Logged
Ron Edwards
Global Moderator
Member
*
Posts: 16490


WWW
« Reply #36 on: June 10, 2002, 03:32:39 PM »

Hey,

I think this is going to be one of those "point people to it" threads that can help out a great deal in the future. Thanks to everyone for participating.

Personal note: people sometimes get the idea that I'm a very improvisational, very share-the-power sort of GM. I'm not, at least not in terms of specific kinds of power. As it happens, I'm a lot more like a bass player in a rhythm-and-blues band - without me, it all falls apart. I don't "say" much, in terms of content, but I'm "talking"/present all the time. The players are like the lead guitar, drums, rhythm guitar, and vocals. What they say is what most people think of as the song. However, without that "four" beat (Kicker spiking), without the confirmation of the chords (NPC responses), without the eighth-bar chord change (scene framing) ... no song.

Ask any bass player. Typically, they're so calm, compared to most band members. Typically, everyone just rolls their eyes when the lead singer has yet another tantrum, but they all sit up straight if the bass talks about "another direction, maybe"?

Doesn't seem like being the bitch to me.

Best,
Ron
Logged
Gordon C. Landis
Member

Posts: 1024

I am Custom-Built Games


WWW
« Reply #37 on: June 10, 2002, 05:38:10 PM »

I've been reading this thread and thinking "isn't there a simpler answer about what's fun in this mode?"  I knew there was (for me, anyway), but I couldn't find a way to say it.  Jeff's phrasing his question as "When you give up the control and power of creation, what's left for a N-GM but menial labor, and what fun is that?", and Ron's re-expression of the Band Metaphor, uncovered a way (by my brutally mis-matching the band metaphor with game terms):

It's fun because I have in no way given up the power of creation.  I'm creating up a storm - as I play.  Based on the sheet music*, some of which was written by the designer, some by me, maybe some by other band members.  Yeah, sometimes it's hard to let other's into the sheet music creation - but if I didn't, my creating would *end* once that music was done.  Play would simply be the "revealing" of my creation.

The opportunity to be truly part of the performance - to create the game as we play it - more than compensates for the lost power.

(*"sheet music" isn't quite what I mean - I'm no music expert, but even in a jazz improv, there a basic theme that folks riff off, right?  That's inculded here, too.)

(And writing this has helped me realize something: if I can't GM this way - which has happened on pretty rare occassions - I'd just assume not GM.  I can be pretty happy playing a character in some Game/Sim-focused modes, but not as a GM.)

Anyway, like folks have said, a very interesting thread.  Thanks, all,

Gordon
Logged

www.snap-game.com (under construction)
Christopher Kubasik
Member

Posts: 1153


« Reply #38 on: June 10, 2002, 06:04:13 PM »

Hi everybody,

Well, Gordon got his concise post up before I finished typing this monstrosity, but what the hell....


******

Narrativism isn't Author Stance or Director Stance.  The two stances (along with Actor stance), can show up in any form of play.  

(Favorite example: A bar fight is about to break out.  A players says, "My guy picks up a beer mug and smashes it against the sailor's face."  The GM never said there's a beer mug there, but it seems reasonable for the PC to grab one off the table -- essentially allowing the Player to create a mug out of verbal air.  That's Directorial power in the Players hands, and we all use it all the time.)

*****

Kickers aren't tied to Director stance.  They're tied to Author stance.  During chargen, a player says, "I want a Kicker like this: My daughter shows up -- haven't seen her in ten years -- says she needs a million dollars for her two kidnapped children."  This is author stance because the Player is creating a bucket load of story material.  But it's not Director stance because the GM can create the circumstances of the kidnapping.  Who is the kidnapper?  Are the kids alive?  That's all up in the air at the Kickers creation.  It will be resolved through play.

So if that's the Kicker, and I as GM, decide the kidnappers a low life by the docks, and the player decides, during play, this guy and decides he's got all the good making for a henchman.... Well, that's the player's choice.  That's Authorship.  Note that this all went back and forth between the players.

As noted in posts above, this will be appealing to some, not to others.  There's plenty of precedent in other creative fields however: jazz has been mentioned, as well as improvised theater games.  Why is it fun?  It's fun because it's fun to catch the ball and spin it back in an interesting way.  It just... is.

********

Let us not forget Bangs. Once you've introduced Kickers into Narrativist play, you'll probably add Bangs.  Bangs are the *new* problems tossed at the players during a session.  They're like Kickers in a way, but lighter, and one to a dozen of them will be wrapped up before the Kicker is resolved.  The GM creates these -- either before hand or on the spot.  He tosses them to the players ("Aliens are unfolding for the heating unit ducts!"; "You enter the crime scene: There's a dead criminal defense lawyer with a pound of flesh torn out of him and the word GREED written on the wall -- just like the murder yesterday with GLUTONY") and see how they respond.  The Narrativist slight of hand is this: the GM waits to see what the players have their characters do in response.  He does not anticipate the response.  Thus, he's tossed the verbal ball, the players have it, reshape the rooms air into new sounds and tosses it back to the GM.

(In the second exampel above, from Se7en, Somerset doesn't do the PC thing -- that is, hunker down deeper on the case.  He wants off *now* -- before he gets sucked deeper down into this freakshow.  That's a Narativist choice in action, and we would never know that might happen until that moment when the decision was made after the Bang was offered.)

*********

And smaller than Bangs are just the --  you know --  problems the GM offers up.  The PC wants to hit on the princess.  The GM offers up her father keeps her locked up.  In Narativism, the players have defined what they want for their characters, but the GM offers problems.

(This is different from other styles, where the GM offers both the want and the problem.  It may not seem like a big difference, but it is.  Especially when the players, in this style of play start creating their *own* problems.  Why would they do that?  Because that's what a *story* is like.  Different strokes...  blah, blah, blah.)

**********

Workload.  Some games and group and style require a lot of prep and detail so, when people, objects and sites are accessed they can be used effectively by the rules.  However, some game styles, which requires a more free flow, have rules that you can wing faster.  Sorcerer, for example, has four stats for charcters.  If somebody decides he's going to sleep with the barmaid that night, the numbers are ready.

Now.  You're either the kind of person who likes making stuff up on the spot, or you're not.  But I think it's important to keep in mind that some brains actually *like* making stuff up on the spot.  It's not something to be dealt with -- it's actually a pleasuable experience.

As Jesse pointed out in his terrific essay, the GM preps a lot of stuff before hand.  So the main stuff is already worked out.  It *isn't* all done on the fly.

But if the players are going to have their characters go anywhere willy-nilly, how is this possible?

*********

The Answer:

The Focus of Play.  Each mode of play G, N, and S has its own goals.  N play is about the thematic premise.  (Which Jesse brought up in his post.) The question asked by the scenario, which all the players will have their characters answer through play.

Also, their Kickers.  The contract is this: you made up your character -- pursue it.

So yes, in the Bar of Infinite Possibilities described above it is a nightmare in the making for the GM. But there's some things to keep in mind:

The characters were, I believe, described as sitting around coming up with more and more stuff for the GM to create.  There was no narrativst focus.  No Kicker, No Thematic Question, No Bangs.  (Bangs should work thematically into the story as well.)  That is, there were none of the tools the *GM* and players use to keep the session on track and moving forward.  This could, of course, go on endlessly.

The point is, if my focus is to rescue my grandchildren without parting with a million dollars, I'm not going to walk around town checking out real estate prices.  We have already decided the session is about the Kicker and the Thematic Question.  So: does asking about real estate have anything to do with either of these?  No?  So no one would do it.

That's how it doesn't spin out of control while sitting in bar.  We all know the focus.  The GM's done the back story on that focus.  The players move the story forward on that focus.  The GM responds with new challenges to the players on that focus.  

That's Narrativist play.  Some people find it fun.

*******

Thus, the GM's fun comes from the give and take of creating a story on the fly with the players, watching how the story resolves itself, watching how the thematic question is answered by the players, thinking on his feet with new NPCs and interactions, and, for me at least, being amazed by the choices and actions the players have their characters make that he never could have seen coming.  The work load, such as it is, isn't debilitating because a lot of it's been prepped beforehand [see Jesse's essay], the game facilities creation on the fly, and most importantly, what might feel like work to some is mittigated by the pleasures listed in the first half of this paragraph.

Take care,
Christopher
Logged

"Can't we for once just do what we're supposed to do -- and then stop?
Lemonhead, The Shield
greyorm
Member

Posts: 2233

My name is Raven.


WWW
« Reply #39 on: June 10, 2002, 07:43:56 PM »

Quote from: Jaif
a horde of unstoppable dragons invading all of shadow (etc, use your imagination), then I'd stop the players from designing in the traveller who tells them how to build an "anti-dragon ray gun".

Ah, but since the goal is cooperative storytelling, such an idea would run counter to the productivity of the session or the story.  Why would a player create the anti-dragon ray gun to destroy the plot element?  The GM and players are not in conflict...the GM's creations are not obstacles to be overcome, they are story elements.

I have a feeling that you're thinking in adversarial mode -- that is "me vs. them" or "GM vs. players" when such cannot be the case, and if it is, there are serious social issues at play which have nothing to do with directoral power.

But obviously, yes, we fundamentally disagree.  
So this isn't a problem of "this way works, this way doesn't" or right and wrong, or fun and not-fun, it is simply a matter of taste: either you enjoy sharing control or you don't.  I wouldn't recommend sharing control if control of stuff that's "yours" is what makes gaming fun for you!
As Gareth stated eariler about different strokes.

Quote
Quote
For example, you have no control over a movie, a novel or a television show, yet they are enjoyable, they are entertaining.

I don't do any work either.  I just watch or read.  Fundamentally different situation.

Please don't quote partial statements and respond to them, it leads to out-of-context quoting and nit-picking.  I can't stress this enough: line-by-line replies are one of the bad habits of online discussion and frowned upon here.  Respond to things as a whole, not as pieces (note I specifically pointed out that RPGs were different and continued the line of thought).

Lecture over. :)

Point being that it was an example of how one can have fun or be entertained without having any control, since your question seemed to revolve specifically around a difficulty visualizing such.

That RPGs require input makes them different from books in this respect, but one doesn't loose control, as I previously mentioned...one cannot be assigned to menial labor by players with directorial power.  The GM still maintains creative control of whatever it is he adds, at the moment he adds it, just as it is for each player.  Once again, it is cooperative, not adversarial...the GM is not out to get you, to beat you, to have his plot come to fruition unless the characters do something...collectively, the group is out to create a story, together.

The fun comes from seeing what everyone does with the stuff, as a group.

It would work contrary to the game for the GM to be relegated to a "menial" position, if such were possible.

That's my addition to this thread, and I hope everyone's given you things to think about, and hopefully answered your question to an extent, providing understanding of the viewpoint.
Logged

Rev. Ravenscrye Grey Daegmorgan
Wild Hunt Studio
Jaif
Member

Posts: 327


« Reply #40 on: June 10, 2002, 07:52:24 PM »

Quote
Kickers aren't tied to Director stance. They're tied to Author stance. During chargen, a player says, "I want a Kicker like this: My daughter shows up -- haven't seen her in ten years -- says she needs a million dollars for her two kidnapped children." This is author stance because the Player is creating a bucket load of story material. But it's not Director stance because the GM can create the circumstances of the kidnapping. Who is the kidnapper? Are the kids alive? That's all up in the air at the Kickers creation. It will be resolved through play.


I'm not the expert here, but when I read up on the section about kickers, and then a thread or two on director/author/actor stance, it seemed to me that kickers can clearly fall under directoral stance.  If memory serves, directoral stance is anytime a player a) thinks outside the character's head, and b) effects the environment at large as opposed to the character.

In your example, potentially a daughter, two children, a kidnapping, and a kidnapper(s) have all been created that may not have existed before this moment.  The player may leave these as hollow shells waiting for the GM to fill them, but it seems clear to me that these are items in the environment, not the character.

Now, let me cut back to Jesse's remark for a moment:

Quote
The joy for me as a GM comes in the posing of the question and watching the players derive an answer.

I was thinking about this line a lot, and I would probably say:

Quote
The joy for me as a GM comes in creating a situation and watching the players deal with it.

If I was into the question, then I think I could see GMing while giving up a good deal of directoral control.  Basically, having started with a setting and a premise, I'm now just shepherding (may be too strong a word) the characters along as the make up situations, heading towards my question.  It may require patience, but one day I'll see the light (or fear) in their eyes as they realize the nature of the question I've posed.

However, I'm into the situation.  I want to see how the players (or characters, it gets slippery there) respond to a particular challenge.  I like doing that at the grand level, and I like doing that at a smaller level.  If everybody else is busy creating situations, and I'm just filling those in, then I lose the part of the game that I like.

-Jeff
Logged
Andrew Martin
Member

Posts: 785


« Reply #41 on: June 10, 2002, 08:00:16 PM »

Quote from: hardcoremoose

How does a GM have fun in a game with a high degree of player empowerment?

For me, after running/playing Star Odyssey, I'll hand more power to the players and join in as a player myself, with no GM at all.
Logged

Andrew Martin
Jaif
Member

Posts: 327


« Reply #42 on: June 10, 2002, 08:07:42 PM »

Quote
Please don't quote partial statements and respond to them, it leads to out-of-context quoting and nit-picking. I can't stress this enough: line-by-line replies are one of the bad habits of online discussion and frowned upon here. Respond to things as a whole, not as pieces (note I specifically pointed out that RPGs were different and continued the line of thought).


The reason I quoted that line was that it served as a fundamental premise from which you worked your argument.  You were arguing that there exists situations over which I have no control, but still would find fun.  My point, which I feel you dodged, is that it's not simply an issue of control, but control and work, or in my prior language control and responsibility.  So I accept that I can have fun with no control, but only in situations where I have no responsibility.

What I also said, and still maintain, is that a situation in which I have responsibility and no control will not be fun.  It may have its moments, but overall it's not a fun situation.  Many others agree with this stance, but point out that it's a faulty way to view shared directoral control.  While I don't entirely agree with that assessment, I at least see that POV.

-Jeff
Logged
Christopher Kubasik
Member

Posts: 1153


« Reply #43 on: June 10, 2002, 08:36:40 PM »

Hi Jeff,

Two points of clarification:

The Kicker is created before play begins, so the Kickers characters never spring upon the GM in the midst of play.  Kickers are also negoatiated by the player and GM.  These distinctions may or may not matter to you -- but when it comes to Kickers it means the GM is not blind-sided in the moment with a half dozen characters he's got to invent on the spot.

Now since play hasn't begun yet it's technically not a stance at all, but I ascribed it to Author stance because it sets up the "player's own priorties, fully acknowledging out-of-character knowledge and goals" (to quote some words Ron wrote about Author stance).  So, I'll drop whether or not it's Author or Director -- that's not what matters.  What matter is this:

My main point of bringing this up was to make it clear that the Kicker doesn't dump work on a GM in the middle of play, and that the GM can use all the character possibilities created by the Kicker for his own ends.  I as GM control the daughter, the children and the kidnappers and the player gets to find out what I came up with.  More importantly, they're not just part of the environment, but are the PC's story.  The GM has a lot of power in the fact that he creates the characters.  He will still be able to revel in revealing who these characters are when the they show up on camera for the first time.  (Or the PC might think he knows who these characters are and find deeper secrets, and so on...)  In other words, to use your word, the GM has control of these characters.

Again, I'm fully aware that this is not the sort of play you enjoy (or could anticipate enjoying), but part of you post concerns a great dea of discussion about all the work the GM does without having any control.  The Kicker, in fact, is not that situation at all.  It is a shared creation between the GM and player before play starts that lets the player define what kind of story he wants to pursue, and the GM to define and control vital elements about that story.

As for the Thematic Premise: I think Jesse is playing his group's theme pretty fast and loose.  [In other words, he's playing a Narrativist game, his players aren't quite doing so.]

Note that usually the Question is known to everyone at the table before play starts.  It is one of the focusing elements of most narrativst games.  Everyone knows the question, but only at the climax of the story does each player find out how all the characters answer the question.  (This is, in theory and apparently in practice, one of the reasons players keep paying attnetion when the camera is not on them -- they want to watch how each characters is moving along toward and answer to the question during play.)

Take care,
Chrstopher
Logged

"Can't we for once just do what we're supposed to do -- and then stop?
Lemonhead, The Shield
greyorm
Member

Posts: 2233

My name is Raven.


WWW
« Reply #44 on: June 10, 2002, 08:46:57 PM »

Quote
a situation in which I have responsibility and no control will not be fun.

Note that most of my post dealt with exactly this issue, or rather, non-issue, since I maintain such a thing is an impossibility.  In an RPG, having any responsibility at all grants you control.  Whether it is the kind of control you want (ie: complete control or partial control) is another issue.

Thus I don't feel I dodged the point at all.

If you think I am wrong in my assessment of it as a non-issue, please, say so!  Or rather, better yet, detail a situation -- written as though during play -- where such is occuring, so I might see it in action.  This would would be greatly helpful, as everything I imagine results unerringly in responsibility shifting to the controller.

Also, I'd greatly appreciate it (and it would facillitate better discussion of the issue) if you could please define for me exactly what you mean by "responsibilities" -- that is, what menial functions you percieve the GM to continue to have that leave him with no control.

I ask these two things because I can imagine no situation in where a person would have responsibility, yet no control.
Logged

Rev. Ravenscrye Grey Daegmorgan
Wild Hunt Studio
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4
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!