Who says it? When does he say it? How much can he say?

[Paganini]

Well, "Directoral Mechanics" doesn't really seem to be the right topic for this thread (I needed a review of what Director Stance really is), so I've started a new thread. Here we go:

Ron, the definition of "system" that you give in the GNS document is "A means by which in-game events are determined to occur." This doesn't seem to fit with your previous comments, but maybe I misunderstood you.

At the moment I agree with the GNS definition - systems are used to determine events. There are many ways to do this, one of which is simply "what the players decide." This game needs no particular mechanical constructs - the "system" is simply the natural thought process of the participants.

The question then is, *who* gets to decide? Most so-called "storytelling" games (like the Window, Storyteller) hand the the power to the GM on a silver platter. Players are just there to experience, all the decisions are made by the GM or determined by the system. In the Pool, the power is spread around by the mechanics. I'm taking it for granted that both methods work, since both sorts of games, and all the degrees in between, have their followings.

The question I'm asking is deeper. What criteria should be used for determining who gets the power? I want to know the thought process that James went through when he decided on how the Pool would distribute that power. What should that power depend on? Should it be spread equally? If so, why? Should it be determined by some component of the characters? If so, why? Should it depend on who brought the most beer and pizza? Who brought the cutest girlfriend? Or what?

I see now that incorrect application of terms was initially fogging up the question I wanted to raise. "Saying what happens" and director stance are indeed not the same thing. However, I still want to talk about who gets to "say what happens." Actually, I want to talk about "who gets to say it, and how much do they get to say?" To state it baldly, what factors should affect the decision of how, when, and how much of that power is distributed? This looks like a subjective question... it probably is. So, everyone, give me your opinions! :)

[Zak Arntson]

How to divide narrative control is a design decision. It's something the designer should be conscious of, but there's no formula to get it right. It's another tool in the toolbox.

Metal Opera (disclaimer: I wrote the game) - I wanted the Players to really struggle in the beginning. They've got to work hard to get any sort of power. Therefore, at the start of the game, they have little to no effectiveness. Their actions are likely to set them back rather than move them forward. Narrative control is nearly always in the hands of the GM.

As the game progresses the Players get more and more likely to grab the reigns, and by the very end, they're practically guaranteed to have full narrative control. In fact, you can't finish a session without getting a full control result!

Pantheon, by Hogshead Publishing. It's a competitive game with no GM. To keep it fair there are explicit rules on what a Player can do during their narrative. Again, since it's a competitive game with no referee, you're going to require explicit and fair narrative rules.

InSpectres, by Jared Sorensen. You begin with a good chance of narrative control, but it steadily decreases as the InSpectres lose their Skills and resources. Jared, comments? I don't want to presume design goals. My perceived design goals: Apply pressure on the Players to work towards the goal and reinforce the fact that they're regular joes, not superheroes or green beret special ops forces.

[Le Joueur]

The question then is, *who* gets to decide? Most so-called "storytelling" games (like the Window, Storyteller) hand the the power to the GM on a silver platter. Players are just there to experience, all the decisions are made by the GM or determined by the system. In the Pool, the power is spread around by the mechanics. I'm taking it for granted that both methods work, since both sorts of games, and all the degrees in between, have their followings.

The question I'm asking is deeper. What criteria should be used for determining who gets the power? I want to know the thought process that James went through when he decided on how the Pool would distribute that power. What should that power depend on? Should it be spread equally? If so, why? Should it be determined by some component of the characters? If so, why? Should it depend on who brought the most beer and pizza? Who brought the cutest girlfriend? Or what?

...Actually, I want to talk about "who gets to say it, and how much do they get to say?" To state it baldly, what factors should affect the decision of how, when, and how much of that power is distributed? This looks like a subjective question... it probably is. So, everyone, give me your opinions! :)

In Scattershot, we spell it out.  What the Speaker says it what happens.  What they introduce, they are the Proprietor for; no one may 'do stuff' to what is in their Proprietorship without at least their tacit approval.  Who gets to 'speak?'  It doesn't matter (as long as Proprietorship is observed and Mechanix are used to adjudicate player conflicts).  While the gamemaster has the largest Proprietorship in most games, this gives no one the 'right to say who can speak.'

If you want to talk about stances, I'll have to talk about Scattershot's sharing levels.  In Self-Sovereign sharing, players are expected to act only upon information available to their personae (plus anything that supports their favored Approach to play).  In Referential, they are expected to, at times, introduce and act upon anything which directly affects their personae (and maintain Proprietorship over those items).  In Gamemasterful sharing, 'anything goes;' a player can create anything that does not violate another's Sine Qua Non or 'trample' on their Proprietorship.

Does this example help illustrate the range of what can be done?

Fang Langford

[Paganini]

Does this example help illustrate the range of what can be done?

Yes it does, but I was hoping to hear *why* you think it should be done a certain way. Basically, I'm not asking for descriptions of different ways that the control can be distributed; rather I want to know why people think specific ways of distrubing control is good / bad. For example, it sounds like Scattershot has a very even distribution of control. Your post suggests to me that all the players have a pretty much equal amount of control with the exception of the GM, who has somewhat more. So, why do you think this is good? Why did you choose to do it this way as opposed to a system where the GM has no power, or the players have no power, or whatever? What were your design motivations for making this decision to distribute power? Are some mechanical methods for distributing power better than others? Why do you think so?

[Mike Holmes]

Like Zak said, there is not magic formula or reason why. As best I can determine, it comes down to preference. That is some people like to have power split in one fashion, others like it split another way. For those without broad experience, they usually prefer things with a slpit that is similar to wha they've tried. Some players dissatisfied with the limitations of the "traditional" split have gone off into Freeform. Others dissatisfied with the chaos of open systems move to more rigidly controlled systems of power definition. But in the end it's just based on experience. I personally am capable of having fun on almost the complete range (though I am not fond of being forced into complete audience mode by a GM who does not allow any participation).

So I think you're just going to have to accept that there is no silver bullet on this one. All we can do is show examples of the range, and let you decide what you think is the best. The reason we went with no GMs for Universalis, was just to see if it could be done. Really. No other motive than that. And you know what? We were actually surprised at how well it works. Not that we should have been, the Freeformers have been doing similar things for ages. It's only to a TT player that Low to no GM power seems odd.

Mike

[Ron Edwards]

Hi Nathan,

I think it's well-established, historically, that functional role-playing includes a wide range of how narration gets distributed.

(I prefer "distribution" to control; I prefer "narration" to "narrative." For once, we're working with terms that aren't taken from previous theory, so at last I can try to be as clear/specific with them as possible.)

The default, and it's usually a tacit default, is that "nothing happens until the GM gives it the OK." The player says, "I draw my sword," and the GM says, "Your sword goes 'shing' as it clears your scabbard." Now, I have discovered that many groups deviate from this default considerably, in several directions. Other groups not only remain with this default, but enforce it with severe penalties for violating it. Until recently, all such preferences were considered "individual group style" with no particular reinforcement in most rules texts.

That's important! Arguably, this issue is the The Numero Uno functional criterion of role-playing, for a given game and a given session of play. Yet even with pages and pages of rules details, it remained mostly unmentioned and subject to pure and simple "How our GM does it" in the most non-verbalized way. Believe me - I have played tons of games with tons of people, for decades, and this single issue is precisely what people are focusing on when deciding whether to continue playing with one another.

Now we have The Pool. Now we have InSpectres. Now we have a bunch of others, like Universalis and including (soon!) Trollbabe. It's not the Director stance or the thematic stuff that ties all these games together. The Narrativism is irrelevant to my point. What matters is that these games overtly state who gets to say what, when.

That's a conceptual revolution in role-playing design. I do not recommend or espouse any single arrangement of narration - whether all-GM at one end, or shared-among-everyone-at-all-times at the other. I do recommend and espouse treating the issue up-front and center in a role-playing text.

Best,
Ron

[Paganini]

That's a conceptual revolution in role-playing design. I do not recommend or espouse any single arrangement of narration - whether all-GM at one end, or shared-among-everyone-at-all-times at the other. I do recommend and espouse treating the issue up-front and center in a role-playing text.

I agree Ron, and it was to that end that I started this thread. I accept that the choice of a given distribution scheme is preferential as Mike says. What I'm digging for here is just that. IME, preferences are not generally unexplainable gut feelings. There are reasons people have preferences; I want to hear what they are. Mike hit the nail exactly on the head with "We went with no GMs for Universalis ... just to see if it could be done." That was exactly the kind of response I'm looking for. What, particularly, is it about the Pool's distribution scheme that you find cool? Why? What about Trollbabe? What sort of distribution are you using, and why did you decide to do it that way?

I'm not suggesting that we'll arrive at a "one way is better" conclusion, I just think that a discussion of the advantages / disadvantages of the different methods would be useful. Even if the ultimate choice does come down to preference, people generally have reasons behind their choices. Are there disadvantages to the method used in the Pool? What are they? Whow are those disadvantages addressed by other systems?

[Mike Holmes]

Mike hit the nail exactly on the head with "We went with no GMs for Universalis ... just to see if it could be done." That was exactly the kind of response I'm looking for. What, particularly, is it about the Pool's distribution scheme that you find cool? Why? What about Trollbabe? What sort of distribution are you using, and why did you decide to do it that way?

Interesting, as I thought it was a poor response, but the only reasonable one I had. Novelty is rarely a good long term goal. As I said, the real benefit turned out to be the freedom that it allows. But we only found that out after the fact.

I'm not suggesting that we'll arrive at a "one way is better" conclusion, I just think that a discussion of the advantages / disadvantages of the different methods would be useful. Even if the ultimate choice does come down to preference, people generally have reasons behind their choices. Are there disadvantages to the method used in the Pool? What are they? Whow are those disadvantages addressed by other systems?

The basic issue seems to me to be freedom (or maybe power) over constraint. I think we all know what the benefit to the freedom end is, you get to do what you want more often. The advantage of constraint is more subtle but revolves around the fact that production values of play are often higher in a constrained environment. This can be for several reasons. For one, play might be more "realistic" in a constrained system. Participants can have a greater expectation of the nature of the results in a constrained game (they won't as often see things that bug them). Etc. The problem with constraint is that no set of constraints is perfect, and they often work against themselves. The point of freedom is that players can self constrain. The question is whether thay can do this well enough, and to what extent you are willing to accept when they go out of your comfort zone.

Does that help?

Mike

[Le Joueur]

Does this example help illustrate the range of what can be done?

Yes it does, but I was hoping to hear *why* you think it should be done a certain way.

Basically, I'm not asking for descriptions of different ways that the control can be distributed; rather I want to know why people think specific ways of distrubing control is good / bad.

For example, it sounds like Scattershot has a very even distribution of control. Your post suggests to me that all the players have a pretty much equal amount of control with the exception of the GM, who has somewhat more. So, why do you think this is good? Why did you choose to do it this way as opposed to a system where the GM has no power, or the players have no power, or whatever? What were your design motivations for making this decision to distribute power? Are some mechanical methods for distributing power better than others? Why do you think so?

Actually, what didn't come through very well here is that I don't think one way is "better than others."  The problem is Scattershot is a game designed on the idea of Transition.  That means, if I'm doing it right, depending on your Approach, the distribution is different.  In Self-Sovereign sharing, the distribution of power can be quite a bit like Ron described above; "nothing happens until the GM gives it the OK."  On the other hand, when using Gamemasterful sharing, Scattershot plays very like how you describe; "the players have a pretty much equal amount of control."

The reason I did it that way (and will include Techniques for intentional, consumer customization) is so that Scattershot can 'rise' to whatever level of distribution our customers desire.  Why?  Because I wanted a game that suited more than one 'comfort level;' there are not 'good or bad' distributions, only 'comfortable' ones.  (And if you want to get technical, Scattershot presents: The Unseen - our live-action role-playing supplement - has no gamemaster at all in the traditional sense.  Oh sure, there are referees, game originators, site hosts, and so on, but all the 'action' in-game comes entirely from the players.)

The real choice I made was to make the distribution explicit.  I think 'putting it on the table' is best, rather than letting chance and luck and unspoken social contracts complicate things covertly.  So I advocate "mechanics methods" over 'unwritten rules.'

Fang Langford

[Paganini]

Interesting, as I thought it was a poor response, but the only reasonable one I had. Novelty is rarely a good long term goal. As I said, the real benefit turned out to be the freedom that it allows. But we only found that out after the fact.

Mike, that wasn't supposed to look like a value judgement about your design decisions, all I meant was that your response was the sort I was looking for. "How do you distribute power, and why do you do it that way?" "We went with no GM, because we wanted to see if it could work."

Does that help?

Yeah, that's very interesting. I'm snipping it out and saving it. :)

[Paganini]

The real choice I made was to make the distribution explicit.  I think 'putting it on the table' is best, rather than letting chance and luck and unspoken social contracts complicate things covertly.  So I advocate "mechanics methods" over 'unwritten rules.'

This is good stuff, Fang, thank you! I've already decided that making the distribution explicit is important, and I will do so (assuming I get around to unshelving Cornerstone in the near future. :) Now a different but related question (for everyone, not just for Fang): What in-game or in-system factors do you see as important in determining instances of distribution? That is, *during play* what should the resolution of disputes - even implied disputes - about distribution be based on? Frex, in the Pool resolution is based on an abstract resource (the pool) tied with character effectiveness in the current sphere. What other ways are there? Good / bad? Is this also a matter of simple (or not so simple) preference?

[Le Joueur]

What in-game or in-system factors do you see as important in determining instances of distribution? That is, *during play* what should the resolution of disputes - even implied disputes - about distribution be based on? Frex, in the Pool resolution is based on an abstract resource (the pool) tied with character effectiveness in the current sphere. What other ways are there? Good / bad? Is this also a matter of simple (or not so simple) preference?

That really depends on what approach you take, whether GNS or Avatar/Joueur/Swashbuckler/Auteur or whatever.  The method the game facilitates best completely colors the answer to this question.

It also depends on how much sharing a game employs whether Actor/Author/Director or Self-Sovereign/Referential/Gamemasterful or whatever; while this may seem like the distribution, when it comes to 'who gets to say what,' it also factors where the 'ownership' of game elements comes from.

The question is far too complicated (largely because it's based on personal preference); each manner is different.  Heck, this is pretty central to what makes one game different from another, isn't it?  There is no right answer (or even only a few); mine is to use as many as I can with Techniques to differentiate group desire.

Fang Langford