A thought occurred to me a few days ago, when I've been working out some new rules for my project. Basically, in my game GM has the following functions:

-He controls everything that the players don't (he plays the world).
-He possesses a little bit more narrative veto power than the other players (there's not much GM's fiat).
-During the conflicts he constructs challenges for players (using special pool of points), and plays the challenge against them. If he wins a conflict, his available resource pool decreases (there is some minimum) and if he loses he gets more points for the following conflicts.

I've discovered a little problem connected with the last point. I'm putting GM in a direct adversarial role against the players. I'd been expecting GM to compete with the players during conflicts, but then I realised that he lacks any incentive to try his best. Actually, if he loses, his resource pool increases (which would be irrelevant if he doesn't want to win conflicts anyway).

Now I realised, that during every playtest of the game I've been automatically assuming it is GM's responsibility to provide tough challenge in conflicts, and so it's normal for him to do his best to win with the players. Moreover, I've been somehow assuming that GM abandons this adversarial stance when out of conflicts, not trying actively to crush the PC's completely (conflicts are the core of the game and they consume most of the sessions time, but there is usually some space between them in which GM and players work out context for the next challenge).

The thing is, I want the GM to compete with the players during conflicts, and to cooperate with them other times. I don't want him to pull his punches during conflicts, as well as I don't want him to aggressively try to defeat the players. I want him to provide a fair and engaging opposition, and - what's important - to have the same kind of tactical fun as the other players have.

It occurred to me that there might be some possible problems with GM:

-Aggressive GM's who try to crush the players, stretching their adversarial role out of conflicts, are probably going to run the game dysfunctionally.
-Passive GM's, who don't try to compete with players during conflicts won't provide a fair challenge.
-GM's for whom success in competition is not a reward in itself will probably need some additional incentive.

Should I just state, that the game works under some specific assumptions, and leave it be? Or should I provide some incentive for GM? If so, what could be such an incentive? A reward system of some sorts?

Having that said, I have a strange feeling that my confusion arises from some basic misconception I'm not aware of.

Hi Filip,

I think for real competition you need 2 thing: First, you need to limit the GM's power. The reason that a GM in a traditional game needs to hold themselves back is because, technically(*), they can just say anything they want, including such outrages statements as, "a boulder falls on you, you're dead." But if you were to limit the GM's power mechanically, so that they are on an equal footing with the players, they can go as hard as they want and still keep things fair. You can look at Prime Time Adventures as a game that struggled with this. In that game, the GM has a fixed number of dice for the entire session, based on the PC's power (it's more complicated than that, but that's the basics).

Second, you should make it so that losing a conflict won't knock the players out of the game. If you look at DnD, the reason the GM can't go all out is because the only penalty for conflicts is damage (the only mechanically significant form of conflict in DnD is combat), and if you take too much of that, the player is knocked out of the game. I think Dogs in the Vineyard has a good example of a tacticly interesting conflict system where there are consequences for your decisions, but losing a conflict doesn't change your future effectiveness. That sort of thing may not totally be what you want, but it's worth looking at.

I think you should drop reward for losing conflicts for the GM. Or another possibility, you might enact different rewards for both winning and losing. If you provide more specifics about your game, we might be able to suggest some more mechanical solutions.
_________________________
(*) I say technically because in the real world the GM is constrained by social pressures.

Asking GMs to mentally shift geers is interesting. I think you are going to have to be very explicit about this in your rules and educate people about how to do this.

It reminds me about Solo Wargaming articles I read years ago. The Lone Warrior (the journal of the Solo Wargamers Association) describes lots of ways to run games. Since these were wargames the single player naturally had to play both sides. This involved a mental shift each turn. Unfortunately players often pick favorits which throw the game.

I combated this tendance in my own games by making the best Engle Matrix Game argument I could for that side on that turn. I then let the dice gods settle the matter. I detached from the process and viewed it as an interesting exercise in dice rolling and thinking on my feet, since each successful argument changed the picture of the world. I generally ruled all arguments as average (which mean they happen of a 50/50 roll) unless it was very obvious that the tide had turned against them.

When you ask the GM to be competitive - the combat system (or conflict resolution system) limits what they can do. When you ask them to step back they need a new goal to work towards. Maybe it is enjoying watching things unfold as I did in my solo games. Maybe it is making certain that the players win in the end. Maybe is it playing the good host and finding out what the players want to do next. Maybe it is making something up that flows from the last conflict that propells the players into the next conflict. Etc.

You can tell the player/GM what you want them to do. They can of course decide to ignore it but you've done your duty as a designer presenting them with a tool that works for the task you set out.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press = Engle Matrix Games

Hum... Enjoying watching events unfold as the dice gods dictate. Sure looks simulationist to me - it is just enjoying the world and its happenings.

I think for real competition you need 2 thing: First, you need to limit the GM's power.(...)

Second, you should make it so that losing a conflict won't knock the players out of the game.

I think you should drop reward for losing conflicts for the GM. Or another possibility, you might enact different rewards for both winning and losing.

If you provide more specifics about your game, we might be able to suggest some more mechanical solutions.

When you ask the GM to be competitive - the combat system (or conflict resolution system) limits what they can do. When you ask them to step back they need a new goal to work towards. Maybe it is enjoying watching things unfold as I did in my solo games. Maybe it is making certain that the players win in the end. Maybe is it playing the good host and finding out what the players want to do next. Maybe it is making something up that flows from the last conflict that propells the players into the next conflict. Etc.

Hum... Enjoying watching events unfold as the dice gods dictate. Sure looks simulationist to me - it is just enjoying the world and its happenings.

Hi Philip, welcome to the forge!

Hope this post is useful - it's a short and direct one rather than long, since it may not be applicable to your game.

Now I realised, that during every playtest of the game I've been automatically assuming it is GM's responsibility to provide tough challenge in conflicts

Who decides whether the challenge is tough or not? The players would.

Any situation which involves person A deciding what person B will enjoy (when really only person B knows what they like), will be fraught with issues.

Refresh the GM's pool after every Conflict, if he loses give him X dice, say 1. If he wins give him 5X dice, or something to that effect.

Give the GM a pool, but give him a variable limit.
If starting pool=20, initial conflict max is 5, he can bid up to 5 dice. If the characters win a conflict his limit goes up by 1, they lose it goes down by 1, to a minimum of 1.

Right now GM's pool refreshes after every conflict (just as most of the player's resource pools). Its starting value depends on the number of the players (10 + 5 per player). After every conflict he gets 1 point per player on the winning side (without upper limit), or loses 1 point per player on the defeated side (with a lowest limit of 5 per player). Besides of that the only two ways of increasing the pool was purchasing new Threads by the players (which adds a number of points, depending on the number of starting level Threads the player has at the moment) and bidding Threads in conflicts by them (which adds 5 points per Thread, but only for the duration of that conflict, and gives players chance to increase the level of the Thread or to resolve it - which in turn is the only way of increasing traits and gaining new abilities). I've been playing with the exact numbers, but I was rather sure about the formulas.

I don't want the points from the GM's pool to be bid on conflicts - they represent total mechanical power of the opposition at a given time. If GM spends these points, it is possible he will run out of them, and then a significant number of conflicts would become devoid of any difficulty. And I'm not for random increases of the resources available.

Anyway, there is something in this variable limit idea, maybe I'll use it somehow. Maybe I'll put some restrictions on allocating the points depending on players performance, and increase the pool size after every conflict by some small amount, and a little more if GM wins. Still, I need to think of some way for the players to actually decrease the size of the pool. OK, you've put my mind on the track again it seems ;)

After a private message I see that you want to use conflict resolution but add more options into the system than is now used in other games.

My understanding of conflict resolution now is that the players or GM set up a situation in which a conflict will happen. They set what is at stake. It could be something like this. "Bob is going to go up and talk to the supermodel. The stakes are how far he gets with her. Will he get a date or have his face crushed into the sidewalk?" Players role play the situation to gain advantage to "win" the conflict. A single die roll is made (or a bunch of dice are rolled at the same time) and they win or lose. Either way the outcome is narrated and play moves on from the consequences of what happened.

There are four steps in the process. 1. The scene is set up and stakes are determined. 2. The players role play to jocky for position. 3. The player rolls. 4. Someone narrates the outcome.

There are no mechanical tactics in this mechanism. The GM could set up a scene of their own design but the player can balk from it if they don't like it so in effect the players set up scenes. Players jocking for position are just trying to impress the GM (or other players). There are different ways to do this but that is really about social skills rather than part of the written rules of play. The single die roll is a one time event - no room at all for tactics. The real action is what get's narrated after the roll. The options people are using there are what set up the next scene. At which point in the process are you looking to add in choice?

I'm interested to see how this basic mechanism can be changed. It is a very simple tool right now - a rock, instead of a screw driver.

I use secondary choices in Engle Matrix Games. The players make arguments about what happens next and the referee/GM decides how likely they are to happen. If they happen though, the referee has a variety of tools to use to increase or decrease tension in the game.

They can speed up play by asking all the players to argue about one topic - a big dice rolling contest ensues and one argument wins. Play can move through major points quickly. It is a good tool for wraping up the game.

They can slow play down by allowing the other players to make counter-arguments to the argument just put forward. This is resolved in a dice rolling contest just like above. Play can also be slowed by calling for a second round of arguments. The referee can view an argument as starting a conflict. A second argument determins the outcome (similar to conflict resolution described above). Arguments can also slap negative statuses on characters. The referee can give them a second argument to deal with the trouble before it really hurts them.

These tools are like a throddle on a train engine. They can add intensity of drain it off. What they don't do though is put the referee in competition with the other players. The referee never controls what happens in arguments, they only decide if arguments should have a chance in hell of happening.

Are these kinds of tools like what you're thinking of? If not (and I suspect they arn't) can you telll us more about what options you want to add in?

The risk I see is that options could water down conflict resolution and turn it back into task resolution. The EMG tools don't do that since they really stand outside of the events of the arguments and instead affect the players real time playing rather than anything happening in the game.

Chris Engle
Hamster Press = Engle Matrix Games

There are no mechanical tactics in this mechanism.(...)

Are these kinds of tools like what you're thinking of? If not (and I suspect they aren't) can you tell us more about what options you want to add in?

The risk I see is that options could water down conflict resolution and turn it back into task resolution. The EMG tools don't do that since they really stand outside of the events of the arguments and instead affect the players real time playing rather than anything happening in the game.

Look at This system tidbit from DevP on Story-Games, it may suit what you want.

Oh, that's interesting. It's funny that I've been playing with similar idea lately in connection with adding dice mechanics to Amber DRPG, though mine didn't work the way I wanted and I left the idea for a time. Anyway, that's not exactly what I need in this particular project.

BTW, for the sake of clarity - you might have understood my use of the word 'challenge' incorrectly. I didn't precisely mean 'challenge' in GNS sense in this context. In AlternatiV 'a challenge' is simply the opposition in the conflict, mechanically constructed and played by GM. Maybe I should have used different term, still I didn't translated the rules yet and consequently I didn't defined every term from my game in English.

Are you sure you mean the GM is an adversary and should try his best? Could you mean something like that he should simply be unsympathetic?

Imagine a forrest fire. It could set ablaze a whole town, yet miraculously leave a small hut outside of town untouched (going all around it). Was the fire an adversary and trying it's best? No, it just acted as a fire always does.

Now imagine a GM playing a forrest fire and he decides whether that town burns down (which destroys the players plans). Are you sure you want competitive, where most likely the GM declares the fires burn the town down so he wins? Or do you want unsympathetic, where the GM declares the fire burns down the town, simply because that's what the fire would do, with a complete disinterest in what the players goals were? So when he leaves their little hut on the hill, it wasn't GM mercy/sympathy, it was just how fires work.

Every card represents a moment when cameras are focused on the character, or on the opposition - one can make some concrete step towards winning the conflict and attaining stakes, by taking an abstract "action" (an rough equivalent of a raise in DitV).

I am tackling very similar issues in a game I am working on.

Filip wrote:
As for different rewards for winning and losing for the GM, I simply have no idea how could they look. GM is really constrained only during conflicts, and every conflict is mechanically entirely separate event.

Filip wrote: BTW, I considered what you've written in your first post again - and I think that something similar to what you had in mind is present in AlternatiV. I recall reading some topic here at the Forge about player's choosing what is a challenge for them in gamist play - it was yours, wasn't it? I actually find it very insightfull. In AlternatiV players actually can chose in what matter they want to be challenged - that's the whole purpose of this "setting the context for the next conflict" stuff. Also, it is the player who decides to bid his Threads in conflicts - unless someone else finds it implausible at the moment and vetoes, player has the narrative power to decide when and how the things he before pointed out as important for him (the Threads) are being involved in the story and depending on the result of the conflict resolved or not.

Paul:

Threads are apparently something similar to plotlines in your game, but only players posses them. Completing Threads is possible only through winning a number of conflicts connected with a given story element. In current versions players are not directly awarded anything for losing conflicts (though it is possible for them to get a specific roleplaying award regardless of how they do). Up until now if they lost, GM's pool decreased, so it automatically became easier for them to win following conflicts - but now I'm not so sure about this rule. On the other hand, I'm not sure if I want to reward players directly for losing in a conflict. I don't want to give them incentive to actually try to lose in order to gain that award.

But for GM there is no such mechanics as Threads. Actually, I've just realised that there is some inequality. Players can advance their characters through Threads and watch them grow, so there is some sense of continuity for them. GM "plays the world" and every conflict is totally separate event for him - at most, the size of his pool for next conflicts is going to change. Outside of conflicts GM doesn't have any goal other than cooperating with the players to establish context for the next conflict.

There will be GM's sheet in AlternatiV, I think. It should be handy in tracking GM's pool and allocating points between various statistics of a challenge when conflict starts. I'm also thinking about adding another stat for GM, that would limit a number of points he can allocate to some mechanical aspects of "a challenge".

So, I could possibly give GM some Threads concerning The World. He could track an advancement of some important approaching events and the like. I could also define win conditions for the session clearly (e.g. whoever gains the most Thread levels wins a session). Maybe that's a solution. On the other hand, players try to move their Threads forward because completing them is a main way of advancing their characters (and high level Threads provide some secondary mechanical benefits). I'm not sure if there would be any reason for the GM to try to complete his Threads - I can't think of any long term award he could get. His only award would be to introduce some events into the story of the world, but that's totally different agenda to that of the players.

What's more, I'm afraid that giving GM some win objectives outside of conflicts (which have their own separate win conditions right now) would be an incentive for the GM to try to thwart the players outside of conflicts, instead of cooperating with them. I don't think I want such a fierce competition on the scale of a whole session.

Callan:

If your concern is overly aggressive GM's or overly passive GM's, why not make one of the conditions the player can choose the aggressiveness of the GM? I mean, your trying to get the GM to do his best and yet at the same time not crush outright. Instead of you trying to code that into the rules, why not let the player just decide exactly what level of opposition he's facing? Perhaps the player feels they can only handle a fairly passive GM? Perhaps the player wants a GM to try and crush him outright? Either is fine and up to the players choice.

The GM doesn't work from the same agenda as the players, he plays a different role.

Give him those Threads, let him introduce new events by them. Let him advance existing storylines by them.
I'm not a believer of the "If the PCs don't experience it it doesn't happen" methodology. Use the GM Threads to embody things that happen in the background until they're uncovered.

Actually the more I think about it, the idea of GM's Threads appeals to me more and more. I think I've found a place for them - they will just indicate things that GM is interested about in the story, just as players use their Threads to indicate what they find important. There was a rule that important NPC has the same kind of protection from death stakes and such as PC's - so with GM's Threads the distinction between important and unimportant NPC's, places and other background elements will become formal and clear.

The thing is, I don't want GM to track things that other players wouldn't know about. Since it's a mostly gamist system, I'd prefer if everything that happens at the table was open, so that everyone could be sure that everything goes fair. And I peronally (but that's just my personal preference) don't see any value in events and facts about which player's are not aware. Even if their characters don't know about something, it should be stated clearly for everyone at the table - otherwise it's as if nothing happen at all.

It's not a game about uncovering things anyway - it's about playing competitive conflicts, with some story in the background. So no place for secrecy in this particular project.

The GM doesn't work from the same agenda as the players, he plays a different role.

Filip wrote:
The thing is, I don't want GM to track things that other players wouldn't know about. Since it's a mostly gamist system, I'd prefer if everything that happens at the table was open, so that everyone could be sure that everything goes fair. And I peronally (but that's just my personal preference) don't see any value in events and facts about which player's are not aware. Even if their characters don't know about something, it should be stated clearly for everyone at the table - otherwise it's as if nothing happen at all.

No, right now it is impossible to force anyone to bid their Threads during conflicts. Whatever was purchased as a thread is simply untouchable as long as every player who bought that Thread doesn't consent. So if a player had a Thread "Someday I'll kill the Villain X", it would be impossible for Villain X to die until the Thread is completed by the player, unless he allows that (in such a case he can reallocate levels from that Thread between other Threads, or simply change it to something like "I want to destroy the remnants of an organisation of Villain X" or something).

To purchase new 0 level Thread player has to increase GM's resource pool by some amount. Then he can bid levels of that Thread in conflicts. When he bids a Thread, it gives GM some additional points to use in that conflict only, and if the player wins he gains a level or two of the Thread. If he loses, he decreases the level of Thread by one or two, up to a minimum o 0. When Thread level reaches 5, the player can try to resolve it in a conflict connected with it. If he wins that conflict, he loses the Thread but gains an advancement. If he loses, he has the option - either he loses 2 levels of the Thread, or GM decides how is the Thread resolved and how the advance is to be used.

After every session highest level Thread or Threads are lowered by one level, and 0 level Threads can be removed if player is no longer interested in them.

If GM's Threads work the same way, players won't be able to affect them significantly unless GM decides to bid them in conflict. But it will be impossible for him to increase the level of Thread without actually putting the thing at stakes.

It pays to have some unresolved high level Threads anyway, because they allow recovery of resources during conflicts. Hence the automatic level loss at the end of the session - so that it wouldn't be possible to hoard Threads for infinity.

I thing it's more important that I find some strong reason for the GM to resolve Threads, because with what I have now it only pays to hoard them. There's rather no way for him to advance as players do - and I don't want to give him similar form of advancement, because it could lead to long-term imbalances in the relative potential between the sides.

I could actually give players option for making the GM's bid his Threads in conflicts, e.g. by awarding him more resources for such a conflict. Surely, there is a way.

I'm somewhat afraid that allowing the players to thwart GM's Threads without his consent would encourage competitiveness on the level where I want them cooperate. GM would start to get defensive, and from that, he could start getting aggressive outside of conflicts, which I don't want. I'm inclined to make GM's Threads untouchable in the same way that player character's and their threads are protected.

Unless the GM has some strong reason to build up Thread levels up to 5 and resolve them, there is no reason why he should oppose thwarting his Threads by the players anyway.

My assumption is that it's going to work like this:

Players want their characters to get into conflicts connected with their Threads, because they can bid their Threads and advance, and they are able to gain some mechanical benefits from adequate uncompleted Threads. GM wants the players to get into conflicts connected with his Threads, because he can bid and increase them, and gain some benefit for resolving (which I yet need to find). He can gain more resources during that kind of conflicts, by using the Threads, so conflicts of that kind are less favourable for players, and they are going to avoid them. So, GM will mainly take Threads that are somehow connected with players Threads and matter for them, so that he could get a chance to bid and use them. So, they must actually cooperate and it hopefully creates that context for conflicts I want.

I wander how would giving players option to actually thwart GM's Threads figure into this.

I'm more and more inclined to put some definite win conditions for the session, like for every Thread level gained player or GM gets 1 point, and for every level lost he loses 1 point. For every Thread resolved player or GM gains 3 or maybe 5 points. Whoever gets the most points by the end of the session is the winner of the day. And no award besides that winner status 1st place - maybe the other players should feel responsible to buy the guy a beer or something ;) Or maybe the winner should be able to narrate some important event at the end of the session, or he set the story context for the next session? I don't want the award to be too tempting, because I simply don't want very intense competition on the story level - only on the conflict level.

Eh, thinking hurts ;) I must go on a walk.

Thread being won gives the winner narration rights over its outcome.

The GM then will want to have Threads going on and being resolved so he'll have more control over the developing story.

As for mechanical side, give the GM an advance to his pool. When a GM resolves and wins his Thread his resource pool advances by X(5, 1 for each Thread level, which also allows him to "Resolve" it before it reaches 5?), that way to keep pushing the players in the future he has to use and advance Threads, which in turn push the players now.

Filip wrote:
I thing it's more important that I find some strong reason for the GM to resolve Threads, because with what I have now it only pays to hoard them. There's rather no way for him to advance as players do - and I don't want to give him similar form of advancement, because it could lead to long-term imbalances in the relative potential between the sides.

Guy:

Thread being won gives the winner narration rights over its outcome.

The GM then will want to have Threads going on and being resolved so he'll have more control over the developing story.

You may want to look at Cranium Rats, my recent post about Slime Octopi and Coral(is it still an RPG?) and this LiveJournal entry. I had the same problems with my idea where I am mostly into Gamism.
I decided to call them CSI Games, Competitive(or Cooperative) Story Interaction Games. The name is important.

If all we care about is the mechanics, then we can just sit down and play it as a board/card game, on a purely mathematical level. The fact that we still call this an RPG, the fact that we still generate story is vital in its definition.

Thus, it is not a "Typical Narrativist Game", it's a "Typical" or rather, a "Fitting Narrativist Element", one that keeps the story aspect going on.

Damn, black card for me - I read it as a problem with aggressive GM's inside of conflicts (I saw the aggressive GM and passive GM problem and thought they were both within conflicts)

For passive GM's, perhaps the players can given a certain number of 'Man, that was tough' points. These do nothing, mechanically, the GM simply collects them and adds each sessions total to his overall score. But socially they are an evaluatory tool - a GM who comes out with a handful of them is lookin' good. One who comes out with none - well, it makes you wonder what he was thinking?

Outside of conflicts, when your framing them: Well, if it's tightly defined when a conflict ends and begins, then you can also have a rule where players can take away up to X amount per session of  'Man, that was tough' points if the GM gets aggresive at these times.

Quick thoughts. Sorry for adding my confused posts to your thread! :(

First of all, I'm dropping the working title and I officially title my game as 'Threads'. Because the working title was lame anyway ;)

I decided to call them CSI Games, Competitive(or Cooperative) Story Interaction Games. The name is important.

For passive GM's, perhaps the players can given a certain number of 'Man, that was tough' points. These do nothing, mechanically, the GM simply collects them and adds each sessions total to his overall score. But socially they are an evaluatory tool - a GM who comes out with a handful of them is lookin' good. One who comes out with none - well, it makes you wonder what he was thinking?

Outside of conflicts, when your framing them: Well, if it's tightly defined when a conflict ends and begins, then you can also have a rule where players can take away up to X amount per session of  'Man, that was tough' points if the GM gets aggressive at these times.

Quick thoughts. Sorry for adding my confused posts to your thread! :(

They don't veto narration rights away from the BA, merely the narration instance, keeping Score a function.

What happens when there's a tie in Score?

How many Scenes do you think to have in an average(3-4 hours?) session? When one player leads, he may get to keep Narration for the whole session.

The BA has a better chance of gaining higher Score, if the PCs are seperated he has a Conflict per PC(group), where they only have Conflicts they're in.

They don't veto narration rights away from the BA, merely the narration instance, keeping Score a function.

What happens when there's a tie in Score?

How many Scenes do you think to have in an average(3-4 hours?) session? When one player leads, he may get to keep Narration for the whole session.

The BA has a better chance of gaining higher Score, if the PCs are separated he has a Conflict per PC(group), where they only have Conflicts they're in.

Many a time PCs split of their own volition.

Also, this will cause an adversarial GM, one that will develop grudges, if he's constantly vetoed? Where is his input, his control over the story?

Many a time PCs split of their own volition.

Also, this will cause an adversarial GM, one that will develop grudges, if he's constantly vetoed?

Where is his input, his control over the story?

PCs vs BA

Protagonist Controllers (PCs) do the following:

*They are in control over their characters (and anything purchased as an Edge that isn't an inherent part of the character).
*They can frame scenes and introduce new elements to the story, such as NPC's, locations, events and the like, but they have no direct control over them.
*Outside of conflicts their job is to work with the rest of the group (BA included) on establishing interesting and engaging context for the next conflict. Well, and to seek opportunities for conflicts.
*During conflicts their job is to do their best to win, and thus to provide difficult opposition for BA, to provoke intense tactical thinking on his side.
*They strive to increase mechanical potential of their characters and watch their growth.
*Most of all, they try to do what gives them fun (and since they are playing this particular game, it is supposed that they consider the mentioned things to be fun).

Background Animator (BA) does the following:

*He is in control over every element of the story that the PCs are not. He 'plays the world'.
*He can frame scenes and introduce new elements to the story. Contrary to the PCs, he can control those elements, as well as everything introduced by PCs.
*Outside of conflicts his job is to work with the rest of the group on establishing interesting and engaging context for the next conflict. And to provide PCs opportunities for interesting conflicts. And to add some dramatic twists to the story.
*During conflicts his job is to do his best to win, and thus to provide difficult opposition for PCs, to provoke intense tactical thinking on their side.
*Although he does not advance mechanically, he can shape the world and NPCs in his chosen way and has quite strong influence on the story development, through background events.
*Most of all, he tries to do what gives him fun (and since he is playing this particular game, and assumes BA's function, it is supposed that he considers the mentioned things to be fun).

'The players', 'the group', 'everyone' and the like always refers both to PCs and BA. Otherwise it will be stated clearly if something refers only to PCs or only to BA.

I'm worried he'll have less control.

The PCs are always protagonists, always there, and with Vetoing his meager story control can be removed.

I want to see some AP of your game, I'm interested. It may also answer some design questions I have.

Soon there will be playtest version available, I hope. And I'll try to playtest current version later this week.

As for my playtests, we've focused on conflict resolution up to this time. Outside of conflicts it went in a way similar to most of our other sessions, though I think players were generally a little bit more active in introducing their own elements to the story than when we play mainstream games. I don't remember veto rules to be used at all. But then, there was still a GM and players were accustomed to more standard narrative control division. Since finally I changed some assumptions and formally removed the GM, previous AP doesn't really apply.

So I also wait for AP actually. And I'd really like to see AP from some outside playtest - our sessions are bound to be somewhat influenced by the way we play, so many problems may not come out at all.

I couldn’t help noticing parallels between AlternateV and my husband Michael S. Miller's game With Great Power…  

You noted some concern about putting the GM in an adversarial position.  You’ve mentions the use of playing cards.  With Great Power… also uses playing cards, and during conflict the GM is an adversarial role, as he is in control of the villains, but the GM is also one of the co-writers of the fictional comic book that the group is creating during the game, which allows the GM to also be supportive with ideas for the rest of the players.

The key to creating an adversarial role for the GM in With Great Power... is in clearly defining that role.  From the Beginning the GM is aware that he is BOTH in charge of the Villainous master plan AND Co-collaborator in this fun and dramatic story that all the players are building. 

The players pitch scene ideas for their characters, and set stakes for the scene they have pitched, the GM is free to make suggestions to aid the players, but it’s the player who determines the actual scene.  The GM can only set Scenes for his Villains, not for the Heroes.  Each player takes turns setting scenes that focus on their own characters,  and during this part of play the GM is collaborator.  Once the player determines what the stakes are in the Scene, the GM is in an adversarial rule by setting alternate stakes also geared in a personal matter focusing on the heroes weakness.  Cards are played, the scene is played and then the GM is a collaborator again.

So you really can have it both ways.

-Kat Miller

Hi, Filip. Last year I wrote With Great Power..., a game with an adversarial and cooperative GM role, that my wife referenced above. Having looked over your questions and responses in your thread, it seems that your main trouble is that you want the GM to play hard during conflict and literally pull every dirty trick that he, as a living, breathing, game-playing human being can think of. But you also feel that he needs to cooperate and be the kindly storyguide during the between-conflict scenes of setup. On the one hand, you can give the GM an adversarial role in both conflict and setup scenes, like I did in WGP.

On the other hand, I'd suggest that you take setup scenes out of the GM's hands. This removes the temptation to "play too hard." Maybe the players set them up. Maybe responsibility for setup passes to the left. Maybe the winning side of a conflict advances mechanically (gains levels or whatever) but the losing side does the setup for the next conflict.

Since you've made clear that the setup scenes are not the main focus of game play, then minimize them as much as possible.

Further, I'd suggest 2 things:

1) If you can get a copy of the out-of-print RPG RUNE, by Robin D. Laws, do so. It's all about spending resource points to create challenging conflicts.

2) Drop the idea of the "GM playing the world." Just put the GM in charge of the opposition. Give him a budget and let him and his creativity loose. Let "the world" take care of itself.

So, I have finally finished the first English draft. You can find it here:

http://www.indie-rpgs.com/forum/index.php?topic=19549.0

The discussion in this topic influenced most of the current out of conflict structure, as well as my return to the Negative/Positive Threads. I've also came upon the idea of Bonds after it. The Trait awards mechanics have been somewhat adjusted after my reading of some other topic here on The Forge.

Thanks for help!

I havn't read the whole thread, but I was wondering if when the GM wins they might earn Fiat Points (we'll call them that just for arguments sake). They basically count as extra "people" voting for the GM's side when a veto happens. You mention it is a saftey-valve, but it could become something more I feel.

It'd be narration rights almost. By winning conflicts the players or GM gain more "narration rights", and since the system is self-balancing they should stay reasnobly equal. But it still gives and incentive to both sides. Everyone wants the ability to say what happens, and tying that to winning conflicts means they'll both go there hardest. But out of conflict they gain no such power, and so have no reason to not be co-operative. Infact they'll want to co-operate so as to spare Fiat points for when they're really needed.

Maybe when the GM wins a conflict give them an amount equal to the number of players, and when the players win they get 1 each. Every point brought into play during a veto counts as another vote the same as the person's who brought it in. It means if the players stick as a whole they have equal veto power from a conflict as the GM does.

Just a thought.

I havn't read the whole thread, but I was wondering if when the GM wins they might earn Fiat Points (we'll call them that just for arguments sake). They basically count as extra "people" voting for the GM's side when a veto happens. You mention it is a saftey-valve, but it could become something more I feel.