So I'd like to talk about narrative power. I'll break it down into different types and then discuss the impact of each.

1) Control of Characters
2) Influence over Resolution -- for most systems, this can be divided into influence over success/failure, and influence over interpretation.
3) Authority over Background -- i.e. defining locations, introducing new characters, etc.
4) Scene Framing and perhaps other restrictions which don't directly impact the SIS but control our view of it.

Now, I'd like to point out -- different games will split up the power differently between the players. For example, in a typical tabletop game, players have some of #1 and perhaps #2 via hero points, while the GM has #1 (controlling NPCs), #2, and #3 -- while #4 is often consensus.

But furthermore, these types vary in power depending on the game. For example, in a GMless LARP (i.e. one with minimal organizer intervention), #1 is the dominant power. Everything that happens in the LARP happens by a character doing it. The resolution methods are usually highly restricted (so #2's power is minimal), and there is little ability to do either #3 or #4.

Moving to a more general principle: The balance of these depends on how much of the game action depends on that type of activity. i.e. If you have a lot of new locations and new characters, then that increases the importance of #3. So, if the PCs are constantly wandering into unknown places and encountering unknown challenges, then #3 takes on much greater importance. This is true of most "No Myth" play, for example. On the other hand, if the PCs are fighting a known foe on known ground (like fighting an old supervillain nemesis on an ordinary city street), then #3 is relatively unimportant.

As another example, take a typical D&D combat scene: a set of PCs encounter a set of monsters. So, once the combat is established, #1 is the dominant power. The GM is exercising control primarily through his control of the monsters. But, at least during the combat, #2 is minimal due to the crunchiness of the rules set. #3 does not come up much unless there are hidden traps on the map or new opponents rush in.

A curious phenomenon to me is that many recent tabletop games simultaneously increase the importance of #2 and #3 (which is traditionally the GM's domain), but then try to decrease the importance of the GM by distributing these powers. In contrast, LARPs tend to reduce the power of the GM by reducing the importance of #2 and #3.

Thoughts?

Are you saying that these are different sources of power, or that they are different exercises of power, whatever its source?

They look like different exercises to me: Social manipulation vs. authority granted by rules, for instance, those look somewhat like different sources of power. But saying "The GM gets to decide resolution, while the players get to control characters" is more like the sphere-of-influence treaties that colonial powers got into.

TonyLB wrote: Are you saying that these are different sources of power, or that they are different exercises of power, whatever its source?

They look like different exercises to me: Social manipulation vs. authority granted by rules, for instance, those look somewhat like different sources of power. But saying "The GM gets to decide resolution, while the players get to control characters" is more like the sphere-of-influence treaties that colonial powers got into.