Okay. Something just clicked in my head. Maybe this is something that’s been turned over elsewhere, but it’s a new thought for me. In what follows, “you” means “a player of Sorcerer”; “power” refers to influence over the course of the game’s imaginary events.

Humanity is the metagame score of Sorcerer, but the game also has a meta-metagame level. It is a game about power and its price. The way the game works, the more you pay for your power (i.e., the more you make your character do what demons/rituals demand of you) the more precarious your grip on that power becomes (lower Humanity), until you’ve paid too much (Humanity 0 – you’re out of the game, meaning you have no more power). This is because you’ve given away your power by doing what others demand of you.

You see, Sorcerer, as a game about power, uses such strong Author Stance, Kickers, Player-created Demons, etc. precisely because it gives you power. What will you do with it? Will you kowtow to the demands of imaginary beasties? Bend too far and you’re out of the game because you’ve spit upon your power – sullying it by seeking petty ends. It’s not just the characters that the game judges, it’s you, the player, as well.

I wonder for a moment whether a game could be designed that gives the GM the standard level of power of a “traditional” RPG, but is built in such a way so that the spotlight is self-consciously on the GM and what she does, much like Sorcerer’s spotlight is on the Player and what he does. In such a game, the players and their characters would be tools to facilitate and evaluate the worth of the GM-generated series of events (i.e., what most RPG scenarios call “plot”).

The idea is too muddy in my head to say anything other than that – but I think there’s a kernel of something there that I can’t quite see at the moment. What say you? Am I raving, or perhaps retreading tired, old, obvious points?

Hi Michael!

Regarding your Sorcerer point, I merely reverse the book and run my finger over the text on the back cover, smiling placidly ...

You wrote,
"I wonder for a moment whether a game could be designed that gives the GM the standard level of power of a “traditional” RPG, but is built in such a way so that the spotlight is self-consciously on the GM and what she does, much like Sorcerer’s spotlight is on the Player and what he does. In such a game, the players and their characters would be tools to facilitate and evaluate the worth of the GM-generated series of events (i.e., what most RPG scenarios call “plot”)."

I believe that this is what Christoffer (Pale Fire) was aiming toward in his somewhat diffusely-posted game tentatively (but hopefully not permanently) titled Yggdrasil. He wanted plain, fun Illusionism - yeah, it works out the GM's way, so what? The fun was in the fun Color and getting to do stuff. I still think it's a valid game design goal.

Best,
Ron

Hey Michael,

I wonder for a moment whether a game could be designed that gives the GM the standard level of power of a "traditional" RPG, but is built in such a way so that the spotlight is self-consciously on the GM and what she does, much like Sorcerer's spotlight is on the Player and what he does. In such a game, the players and their characters would be tools to facilitate and evaluate the worth of the GM-generated series of events (i.e., what most RPG scenarios call "plot").

If I'm reading you right, and I think I am, you should definitely take a look at the importance of Sim-like gameplay to the Narrativist thread, with particular attention to the stuff on "Type2 authorial interests." In my mind, what you're talking about isn't a Narrativist game that gives the same power to the GM as a traditional game, but one that delivers the same ownership distribution.

And to me, the poster child rules system for this kind of Narrativist play is EPICS. It reserves unto the GM the ownership of setting and the nature of conflict, at the same time as it delivers authorial power to the players that allows them to effectively create their characters through play.

Paul

Hi, Paul.

Thanks for the link. I had been reading the thread, but then Christmastime happened. I agree with your points about Ownership (I haven't gotten EPICs yet), but I was thinking more of a game that puts the evaluative power that traditionally a GM exercises over a player, into the hands of the players, to exercise over a GM.

Examples of "evaluative power" are many: Who gets experience points and how many? When is there a Humanity check and what merits a Humanity gain roll? Does my alignment become evil if I kill an orc that surrendered? The GM is effectively saying "this is right and that is wrong."

Now that I type out examples, it seems that I'm talking about who controls the Reward mechanic, and where it's pointed. I guess I wonder whether a Reward system can be aimed at the GM instead of, or in addition to, the players. This seems to mesh with ideas of genre keeping players' uses of Directoral power in line, except that it would limit the GM.

Way back when I was a young & insecure DM (yes, that far back), I used to hand out little surveys to my players after each session with questions like "Rate your enjoyment of this session on a scale of 1-5" They proved quite useless and I stoped using them quickly. I'm not sure if this possiblity that I'm sensing would look like those little surveys or not, but I think that having a Reward mechanic in the players' hands that's aimed at the GM would, I think, promote the Respect of Ownership for type2 goals that you mention in your thread.

Has anyone done anything like this that I could see what it looks like?