So let's assume that a game has set up a large degree of player-control over play. What I'd like to discuss is how the GM operates in actual play.

Players traditionally have investment in the game in the form of their characters. The investment of the GM has traditionally been in situation. If you take situation out of the realm of the GM and give it to the players (in part at least), where does the GM become invested?

Actually, a GM could find investment in pretty much any of the other areas of exploration:

Investment in Character--The GM finds an NPC (probably a mastermind) and makes it "his character". Then he can react in play in the same way the players do (according to character motivations, premise, etc.) The potential problem here seems to be one of adversarialism--if the GM is invested in a "bad guy" he might become too interested in thwarting the heroes.

Investment in System--This is part of the traditional role of GM: he's the player most invested in the rules, serving as moderator in the game. Not very suitable for amplifiaction beyond the traditional play experience.

Investment in Setting--It might be an easy shift for a GM to give up some Situation and invest a bit more in the setting. This would only work if the rest of the players are interested in setting detail.

Investment in Color--Perhaps one of the best things for the GM to invest in is the color of the game. If he isn't so wrapped up in Situation, he might focus on adding detail to play.


Anyway, these are just some thoughts. How have others dealt with the role of the GM in player-driven games? Have you found less investment on the part of the GM?

Hi Jay,

I think Ron's [a href = "http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4988" ]Playing Bass (Narrativism essay preview)[/a] thread answers many of your questions.

Having GMed Sorcerer and Trollbabe, which I think are the kind of game you're referring to, I've found I'm still largely in charge of creating setting and situation, and am the primary authority for interpreting grey areas of the system. Howevever, I avoid investment in particular events occuring or NPCs playing any particular roles; these are temptations to forcing things, a big damper on narrativist play.

The other element you didn't mention is investment in the evolving play. The GM who does not have a single character to focus his creativity on, has more chance to see overall perspective and to get ideas on how to weave things together. This has a strong effect in game and is important to making events feel cohesive.