Please consider this post a possible framework to develop ideas from, not a provocation for those not aggreeing in the goal of it all. I think these ideas are best pursued with a positive attitude. The goal is to create roleplaying games with all the traditional elements and powers, and to see if this opens up for a new/other/broader range of RPG's.

In another discussion ("There's only players in RPG's") Mike Holmes wrote on the methodic powers in RPG's (usually considered GM-powers). His talk of reapportionment of these powers, is exactly what I'm aiming at when talking about the GM being one of the players, nothing more.

I got the feeling he had discussed these powers before, and asked him to post some general list over them, to help our further discussion on the subject.

Mike was kind enough to answer like this:

Mike Holmes wrote: Well, Ralph and I are the posterchildren for this subject as we "discovered" during our creation of Universalis, that you could apportion out all the various authorities to all the players evenly. That's why we sometimes say there are no players in Universalis, only GMs.

The thing is that we did come to this conclusion by "paring down" the GMs authority bit by bit. At one point we were going to have a "first player" who's job was mainly to direct traffic in play. But, as Ron points out, we found that unneccessary, as someone just does that anyhow. It's still sometimes neccessary, but you just don't have to have any rules about it as it turns out. That player is like the guy who read the Monopoly rules and is teaching all the other players. He doesn't have any real authority to do anything, he's just given deference so that he can point out how things should go in terms of procedure.

In this thread we discussed the break up of the powers as seen by Rob for his game COTEC:
http://www.indie-rpgs.com/viewtopic.php?t=4303

I hope the link to his site still works.

At this site, I'm working with the designer on a simular split-up of powers with a little more hierarchy:
http://www.legendaryquest.com/

As mentioned, the big power that tends to be somewhat contentious, is generally referred to as Director Stance Authority. That's the power that's generally reserved for the GM in most games to create (narrate into existence) things beyond the actions of a PC. That is, if a player in most games is suddenly allowed, for example, to create an NPC out of thin air, that's Director Stance. To an extent this power is always available to players on a small scale, at least through tacit GM approval. Some games make uses more powerful or explicit. See The Pool for a classic example, or the use of Fate Points in FATE (www.faterpg.com) for something less defined.

This power is so broad that it can be divided up in myriad ways. For example, you can have different people responsible for plot and for setting. Different participants can even be given their own setting sections to deal with. The varios ways this could be apportioned are probably limitless, though I do think the number of practical or useful divisions is likely much less.

The other most identified power is as final arbiter. When a question of interpretation of the system comes up, the GM is usually the person who makes all final decisions on such matters.

Another power is on the more social level. As mentioned, the host certainly doesn't have to be the GM, and the host can have the social level responsibility to monitor social behavior (if on their property, they have the legal right to remove violators). Other social powers involve organizing session dates, times and locations. In many groups all this is handled on an ad hoc basis, and it works just fine.

I'm sure we can come up with other powers if we think about it.

Tomas wrote: But I've tried to think further on the elements Mike write on in the post itself. Please hold in mind that I am thinking aloud here. I have some experiences close to the reapportionment of powers, but no actual experience with the formal "roles" proposed here:

1 - The plotter
- this player has the task of creating the plot of the story, both big and small plots, sideplots and complications. He may introduce any active or passive element linked with the plot, and may link to the plot elements created by other players.

2 - The Painter
- this player is responsible for creating atmosphere in the game, and to strenghten it in elements by other players. He may create active elements to highten the atmosphere, modify both the in-game and out-of-game environment, and place atmospheric demands on the players.

3 - The Dramatist
- this player's responsibility is to develop relations between characters and NPC's, to introduce and play family-members and friends of the characters, and to stimulate relations between characters.

4 - The Explorer
- his is the task to create setting. That is geography, cities, nature, cultures and leading NPC's in the places the characters travel to. His task is to fill the places with possible elements for the other players to use, and to create his own elements pertaining to the setting i particular.

5 - The Judge
- this is the player handling the conflicts of the game, formulating them, modifying them, making rulings on outcome, and interpreting the consequences. He may introduce any elements affecting the conflicts, or participating in them.

No one is appointed chairman/moderator/time keeper of the game. This is a joint venture, and as such the players must relate to eachother in a polite and intuitive way.

An explanation of the term elements
Elements are the various bits and parts by which the fiction are created. It is the tools by which we create our drama. It may be the fundaments for the drama, like setting, atmosphere and cosmology. It may be the particulars of the drama, like NPC's, scenes, artifacts or conflicts.

The roleplaying game itself and it's preplanned parts, is broken down into easy to handle elements (preferrably by the gamesmith), and distributed amongst the players, each player given elements pertaining to his powers in the game.

There is also the necessity to produce a sheet on tools pertaining to the different powers. This one-sided flyer, with simple and substantial advice, will make it easier for the players to act in accordance with their powers, and make a positive contribution to the drama.

That's all folks. What do you think?

The data in the links shouldn't neccessarily all be in PDF format. The link to COTEC discussed in a thread here how Rob is dividing things up (not just roles, but how to establish the roles). At the legendaryquest site, look at the forums there under "New Rules" and one of the rule proposals about giving players more dramatic powers.

In any case, you ought to be able to download Acrobat Reader. Or are the only machines that you have access to policed? Or are you on some bizarre OS?

It's interesting that one of the ideas about plot that you see around here is that all you need is good NPCs and nothing else. Not to say that other methods don't work. But under this assumption, you'd only need the Dramatist, and not a Plotter.

I'm a big fan of the Explorer and Painter ideas.

The one big potential problem that I see is that you haven't discussed at all how things are introduced into the narrative. You give some borders, but no directions on what these people actually do in play. For example, can the Explorer just jump in at any time with a setting note? Can the Painter do the same with something atmospheric? Or are these things planned out pre-session? Basically who gets to speak when? Even if it's a free-for-all, that ought to be mentioned.

Another big potential problem is jurisdiciton. If I as the Explorer drop in a note about the music being played in the tavern, is that stepping on the Painter's territory? If he objects, what happens? Can the Judge adjudicate these conflcits? If so, doesn't that give him a very potent final arbiter club to wield over the other players? Or is there some other way to deal with conflicts?

And, as in the COTEC thread, how are these positions determined? Can a participant do more than one (this option leads to the potential that a player accumulating them all would be just like a GM, which might satisfy some who want to play that way).

Just what occurs to me off the top.

Mike

I've given an explanation of the term elements in the first post. However; it seems to be lacking in clarity. Here's what I hope to be a better explanation:

Elements are the various bits and parts by which the fiction in a roleplaying game are created. It is the substantial parts of the fiction, to which we apply our narrative tools, to create our drama.

It may be the fictional framfor the drama, like setting, atmosphere and cosmology. It may be the particulars of the drama, like NPC's, scenes, artifacts or conflicts.

Setting-elements, passive
These are the elements that make up the fictional frame for our drama. It includes elements like geography, architecture, furniture, infrastructure, passive persons in the environment (anyone not involved, but described to be there), "inactive" conflicts (not engaging the characters), atmosphere, cosmology, etc. These elements may be converted into active elements by the players, but they are considered passive for the purpose of this definition.

Drama-elements, active
These are the elements powering the drama. It includes all fictional elements that relates actively to the characters in one way or another. It may be particular scenes, active conflicts, monsters, non-player characters, characters and their qualities (outfit, skill, abilities, race, etc.).

The roleplaying game itself and it's preplanned parts, is broken down into easy to handle elements (preferrably by the gamesmith), and distributed amongst the players, each player given elements pertaining to his powers in the game.

How an element is used is the decision of the player introducing it. When a player has introduced an element, there is no way back. It can only be modified by other players, not removed.

Example:
John is the painter of the game. He introduces heavy rain to underline the dark atmosphere in the drama.

As he describes this, Tom's character (a witch) find this a nice oportunity to introduce his water demon. He summons it in the air before them, the judge of the game giving him positive modifiers due to the torrent. he plans to make use of it in the groups attack on the caravan (the group being highwaymen).

At this time the plotter of the game make use of it (thus modifying the demon, and using it for his own purpose). He has a plot where the water demon fits nicely, and let the demon give the characters a challenge:

Go to the peak of Mount Excelcium, and summon me in the hearth of fire there!

Then the demon vanishes, willing itself to break the bonds the witch has made for it. The characters are left to grope for themselves, in their dirty attack on the traders.

Tom's character wonders on this, as his judge tells him the water demon must certainly perish in the intense fires on Mount Excelcium. Why then, does the demon want him to summon it there, bringing certain death to it?

The painter further develops the idea, by stating that demons are considered beings with no ethics or compassion. They are the dark forces of confusion and corruption, and serves the strong magi. How then, could the demon refuse to help the witch in this situation? Could it be that the flash of tristesse all of them felt the moment before it vanished, was emanating from the demon?

The judge on his side is actively trying to feed the possible conflict between the characters, as the witch failed to deliver the support promised for the attack. The attack had to be cancelled. He simply states that the character of John needed those money... desperately!

The plotter is not sure how all this modulates the plot he has introduced, but his first task was to get the characters to Mount Excelcium, so he congratulates himself with a nice first step on the way.

Heh, sounds like a game of Universalis :-)

I read a couple of reviews of the Universalis game, and it brought back old times. In 1989-90 my friend Jon Venbakken and me created a small series of experimental RPG's called the Impro-games. The descriptions of Universalis in the reviews leave me with the same feeling we got then, playing the various Impro-games.

The Impro-series
These games were basically all about making setting and simple methods for some drama, and then improvising roleplay with it. Some of them got a method for the improvisastion, some were quite freeform.

Come to think of it; all of them, save one, were close to being totally freeform.

- Impro 1 had GM's, but the players chose the setting between them. Play commenced with a high grade of improvisation.

- Impro L had a director, a narrator and left the rest to be actors. The director decided everything. The narrator described it. The actors got to play various characters at the directors whim.

- Impro N went the other way, making the "GM" almost powerless. His only functions was to decide who got to tell the story, and to speak when NPC's were expected to say something. The players agreed on setting and conflict, and took turns telling the story from the viewpoint of their own characters. We named it "The Noble Method".

- Impro M'tu was by far the most simplistic in the series, and the last. There's nothing much to it; you only start making characters, and make a story. The rest is up to the players.

There was only one rule for the design of these games: we had one sheet of paper to describe each one of them, nothing more.

We had great fun with these games back then (cheers to you Jon, where ever you are), and it certainly got me thinking on RPG's in new ways.

Tomas,

I'm struck by how well your five roles correspond with the five Explored elements from (sorry, another link) Ron's essay :

Character = the Dramatist
System = the Judge
Setting = the Explorer
Situation = the Plotter
Color = the Painter

So I think your identification of categories for the "stuff" that goes into play is quite accurate. Having an individual responsible for each of these categories is intriguing. I suspect many people prefer to have "power" in more than one domain, but even if we are going to allow that, there's a real advantage in knowing what the categories of that power-use can/will be.

And yeah, I'll support Ralph and Mike in saying that your example of play reads very much like a Universalis session. Add a Gimmick (Universalis-speak for a created-in-play "rule") that says each of the five roles is split among the players, and I suspect you could literally do your example with Universalis.

I think there's definitely something gained by having clarity about the existence of these roles. I'm not so certain what the effect (positive or negative) of splitting them to seperate people would be, but it sounds like a fun experiment.

Gordon

Gordon C. Landis wrote: your five roles correspond with the five Explored elements from (sorry, another link) Ron's essay :

Character = the Dramatist
System = the Judge
Setting = the Explorer
Situation = the Plotter
Color = the Painter

Mike Holmes wrote: It's interesting that one of the ideas about plot that you see around here is that all you need is good NPCs and nothing else. Not to say that other methods don't work. But under this assumption, you'd only need the Dramatist, and not a Plotter.

Mike Holmes wrote: I'm a big fan of the Explorer and Painter ideas.

Mike Holmes wrote: you haven't discussed at all how things are introduced into the narrative. ... For example, can the Explorer just jump in at any time with a setting note? ... Basically who gets to speak when?

No, I do not agree in this. It is of course right that all you need is love... for NPCs and characters. Played wtih careful consideration on values, ethics and powers you may create RPGs of great standard. However: not everybody has the abilities to perform to such loose standards, and I sincerely want to make games for mr. Normal and miss Jollygood.

Valamir wrote: Plus you're misconstrueing Mike's point about good NPCs. He isn't advocating some free form structureless play. He's suggesting that "plot" is something that comes about because of the player's choices for their characters and how and when and whether they decide to interact with NPCs vs. "plot" as something that is designed or sketched out in advance.

In otherwords, set up a situation, wind up all of the principle characters, and let it go. The plot then comes from how all of the parts interact with each other instead of a preconcieved notion of where it should go.

Mike Holmes wrote: That is, while the Dramatist could make the character's motivations,

Mike Holmes wrote: That makes the Dramatist more of a background player potentially, it seems to me

Mike Holmes wrote: what happens in one player creates something that contradicts another player's creation? Is it up to the Judge to decide what stands? What if there are two judges (first multiple allowed to be introduced), and they disagree?

Mike Holmes wrote: Familiar with Parliamentary Proceedure? Roberts Rules specifically?

Tomas HVM wrote:
The characters motivations are made by their players. The Dramatist has relations as his main concern. Whatever motivations the characters derives from his efforts, and how they follow up on his ouvertures in the relations department, is entirely in the hands of the individual player.

I consider a rule, a real rule, forbidding the contradiction of former initiatives to be wise. It's simple, tested in other games, and may function as well in a game with this method.

The Judge is a judge of in-game conflicts, not meta-game conflicts.

If there is two judges they will alternate in doing judgement, and always doing judgement on the characters of eachother.

Mike Holmes wrote: Familiar with Parliamentary Proceedure? Roberts Rules specifically?

No. Is it something like Nomic?

I translated Nomic into Norwegian some years ago, and played it a fair bit.

I wrote:
The characters motivations are made by their players. The Dramatist has relations as his main concern.

Mike Holmes wrote: That's a little confusing. Are there PCs and NPCs? How is a relationship different from the attitudes that the participants have towards it?

Mike Holmes wrote: But sometimes it's a judgement call.

Player A: "I go to the tavern."

Player B: "I beat him there."

Player A: "But I'm already there, he can't beat me there!"

Who decides? Believe me, things don't always have a simple consensus. I'm not saying that this happens constantly, and it might not happen at all in a particular group. But if it does, it's good to have an arbiter.

Mike Holmes wrote: Standard "Conflict of Interest" statement. What happens if both Judge characters are involved? Also, if there's one judge, and his character is involved, who judges? Is there a succession of power?

Mike Holmes wrote: Parliamentary Proceedure isn't a game, really, I was being facetous. I refer to the rules actually used in large meetings and actual Parliaments.

Cool clarifications.

- Each player makes his own character, to play in the game.

- Each player is given a power, to wield in the game.

- The player himself decides when to act his character, and when to use his power. He is free to do so to highten his own amusement, the amusement of other players, and on behalf of the drama.

- There is no formal in-fiction connection between power and character, but the player may use his power to strenghten the impact his character has on the drama. We may call this power-positive-gaming :)

First: there is no contradiction in these two statements. Player A stated that he went to the tavern, not that he already was there. So player B was in his right to "beat him".

On the "it's good to have an arbiter" statement; well, not always. Sometimes the group is best served with solving some problems themselves. It will give them insight into the essence of the activity, to set words on the values they wish to fill their games with.

Mike Holmes wrote: Standard "Conflict of Interest" statement. What happens if both Judge characters are involved? Also, if there's one judge, and his character is involved, who judges? Is there a succession of power?

I'd have to give some advice on such situations, wouldn't I? What would you do? How would you solve it, and write it?

Mike Holmes wrote: Parliamentary Proceedure isn't a game, really, I was being facetous. I refer to the rules actually used in large meetings and actual Parliaments.

Oh yes, I do know about such rules and procedures. And I know about social "procedures" as well, and the power of dialogue, and the methods used by children in play. I use all these things when explaining a roleplaying game.

The threshold really lowers when players are able to use their lifelong abilities.

I would just like to say that I'm finding this thread very interesting and it is informing some of my own design work in distributed power games.

For my own purposes, I have made the following divisions (not all of these are necessary for all games)--

Establish Goals (note that this is often not a GM position, but a "party leader" one)
Track in-game History
Establish pre-game History
Establish World-Scale pre-game setting
Establish Narrative Setting
Establish Tactical Setting (the system-wise whose, whats, and wheres.)
Play Incidental NPCs
Play Friendly NPCs
Play Antagonistic NPCs
Settle Disputes
Determine World Effects (of PC actions)
Keep Secrets

Note that a lot of these might be seen as "overlapping," and some of them might be split up.

Just thought I'd offer out my list for comparison.

yrs--
--Ben

Mike Holmes wrote: Cool clarifications.

Mike Holmes wrote: When using your power, can you use it to directly affect another player's character?
...
What does the player control in terms of his own character? What can other players do to that character with their powers?

Mike Holmes as Player A wrote: "Wait, you mean that I have to be so specific in every declaration that I have to say that I'm not only doing an action, but that it's also complete when done? That's ridiculous! You mean that if I declare that my character is going swimming that he's not actually in the water until I say he is. Instead he's just walking to the water if I say he's 'going'?"

Mike Holmes wrote: Succession of powers. If all current Judges are involved, then the Painter adjudicates. If he too, then the Dramatist. Etc.

Or, just trust the judge. IMO, that works just as well. We trust the GM, right?

Mike Holmes wrote: Agreed. So empower that. Enumerate how the players are so empowered to use these abilities. That's what the rules are for.

I think these are all functional choices. I don't agree with you on every point that some of what you claim are always best practices, however. For instance, Univeralis and SOAP both work by taking turns with formal rules for interrupting and the like. For these games, I think the format works well that way.

But that's not to say that your methods won't work. Just that I think they're options amongst many viable solutions.

Also, rules, system, methods, it's all the same to me. The text gives the players a single vision for how play can be accomplished successfully. To that extent, I suggest that being thourough is of benefit. If it turns out that some "rule" or "method" is not to the liking of the group that plays, then they can change it (and will). But to not include a tool that might help most of the groups who play is an oversight, IMO.

Just something to think about.

Are you going to assemble all of this into one document at some point? Also, is this for a generic game? Or do you have some setting in mind for it?

Mike

I don't expect everybody to agree with me, as most of my choices are made agree according to my liking, not as an objective "better way". some of them may be a better way to reach certain goals. I do think I make choices amongst many viable solutions.

Mike Holmes mention Univeralis, and this seem to be a game not quite up my alley, although I could imagine having fun with it (as I had great fun with Impro M'tu back in the early nineties). But the game may still work like the sun.

Mike Holmes wrote: Are you going to assemble all of this into one document at some point? Also, is this for a generic game? Or do you have some setting in mind for it?

Ben Lehman wrote: I would just like to say that I'm finding this thread very interesting and it is informing some of my own design work in distributed power games.