GM as Moderator or... Editor?

[Andrew Martin]

Bad players will be bad players no matter what.

In my experience, I've found that bad players are the way they are because of the rules systems the group uses; "bad players" follow the rules, while "good players" follow the cues of the GM.

With a rules system that rewards desirable behaviour, I've seen "bad players" behave just like "good players" in less than a few minutes.

I don't agree because to me that seem liks saying Law breakers break the laws because the Laws are no good. give them good laws and they will behave.  Admittedly all of our "bad" and "good" are extremely subjective and so its hard to quantify sometimes.

I think we're in agreement then. Notice that "bad players" are following the written rules of the game system, and "good players" are breaking the written rules of the game system but are following the GM's social contract. Once the written rules exactly match the social contract, there can no longer be any difference between "good players" and "bad players".

[Bankuei]

I do see your point of system favoring certain players, but to be honest, I think all systems favor someone.  For math heavy min/max systems, it favors those who can find break points and currency strategies, for games that reward narration, a pleasing narration, etc.  I'm don't see how it is possible to create a game that doesn't favor someone, since gaming, like any other activity, has people who are strong at some points and weak at others.

Ok so in Editorist theory the characters are not writing ONE story but each writing their own part of the greater anthology which the GM makes sure is equal parts. HE or she sits back and reacts as Environment to the various stories, ensures eeryone's story is heard, and does their best to encourage, through a rules light system (hopefully more rules are not better in my opinion) participation.

So, if I'm following you correctly, you're thinking similar to The Questing Beast's view of each player has their own story, and they may or may not cross or overlap?  

A larger issue, if the players are in fact, writing/contributing/determining their stories, then shouldn't they gain some input as to the types of conflicts which they encounter?  One can take two characters who have the same ideal; to live with their family, and put them through completely different conflicts, and arrive at a completely different story.  As an example, take Mad Max from the first movie, and Maximus from Gladiator.  Similar goals, completely different stories.

If we're going from the argument of "Control of your character=control of your story", that's not quite right either.  If my goal is to have a very internal story about redemption, and the motivations of my character, and the GM puts me into a hack fest, or a political intrigue story, there's no guarantee of my story ever getting told.

I'm not arguing for or against Director Stance, or GM good/bad.  What I'm going back to is your original idea that the GM should be more of a moderator than a dictator, yet in fact, a moderator has veto rights, but doesn't necessarily chime in very often(in moderator voice).  If we were talking a political show, the moderator isn't there to express their views, but to highlight the views of the guests.  

In this case, what you're talking about is a set of rules that strictly defines what a player can and cannot do, although I don't see how one stance as opposed to another makes a difference.  Universalis is all Director stance but has very strict rules to prevent player abuse.

So, to clarify this a bit better:  What powers would the GM have that would highlight player stories and prevent abuse?  And second, what powers would the players have that would allow them to have input into their stories and prevent abuse?

Chris

[ADGBoss]

I am in the middle of a few products but I am writing a response very soon and continuing the discussion

SMH
ADGBoss