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! :)

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.

Paganini wrote: 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! :)

Le Joueur wrote:
Does this example help illustrate the range of what can be done?

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

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

Ron Edwards wrote:
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.

Paganini wrote: 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?

Paganini wrote:

Le Joueur wrote: 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 wrote: 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.

Does that help?

Le Joueur wrote:
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.'

Paganini wrote: 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?