First real post here - I'm not sure this is the place for it but here goes.

The situation: I'm running a game called Pathways. It's a homegrown in both system and background, and is fairly traditional in structure - one autocratic GM, a bunch of players with one PC each - the usual. If you're interested - it's a 17th Century fantasy high weirdness thing, with a fairly sane normal world, with increasingly wacky Marches (mini-realms) being accessible off it. PCs are pretty high powered, and the game has been about occult mysteries and swashbuckling so far. PC group are funcional and creative - most run games themselves (or have done) and are used to the odd off-the-wall game.

Right. Had a change recently. The game used to run for 6 players, with a long session every few weeks (or months - I'm a slacker). Recently though, we've embarked on a series of gaming weekends out of town with old friends. This means the new sessions are also long, but separated by months and with more players (9 last time). I can do large groups - it's not a real problem.

Anyway, I've had an idea. As the game runs the same weekend as another traditional (and damned fine) RPG, I thought of doing something experimental with Pathways. I like the idea of giving up my (until now) total autocracy, and getting the players to plot things from now on - going to consensual plot and overt narrativism. This is partially inspired by the fact that the last session ended in a situation which could go one of many ways (mysterious widget found, map to strange place where PCs want to go found, some PCs just broken links with their past).

Now, I'm an inveterate system monkey and tinkerer, but I've not done any overtly consensual plotting before. I've had a brief look at Universalis, and someone has promised to show me Donjon, but I wondered if there was some obvious game or mechanic that might help me convert Pathways into something new. I think the players would be more comfotable if they got to 'keep' their PCs substantially, but we all know who the PCs are, and don't need a detailed way of describing them in system terms. I do have some story elements and secrets I'd like to see in the game at some point, but I'm not going to cry if that happens.

So - any suggestions as to plot mechanics, or a complete game that might suit me?

The point at which the GM tries to introduce shared authority into a traditional game structure is often the "jump the shark" moment for most ongoing campaigns. For one thing, your players may be totally content with you as the autocrat creating a functional illusionism. For another, even if some of the players are keen on the idea, they may not be sufficiently experienced with such techniques to produce satisfying play, especially if they are experienced traditional roleplayers.

Simply adding a few "narrativist techniques" to your homegrown system is also unlikely to produce satisfying play. Check out the recent thread Mike's Standard Rant #7: You Can't Sneak Up on Mode for some other observations about this.

My advice: start fresh with a new game, new characters, new campaign. At that point, you can always go back to your original campaign in the future without it's distinct creative vision having been muddied with your experiment. It may be harder to sale some of your players on this; but on the other hand they are probably the same one's who might be resentful about your changes.

Also talk to your players. Is this something they would want? If not and you are not enjoying your ongoing campaign; it may be time to wrap things up anyway. I am sure some people have succesfully transitioned from one mode to another; but for us to give more meaningful suggestions, you might want to move this thread to Actual Play and give us concrete examples, discussions of your players, and a further discussion of you disatisfaction.

If you do try to change modes, either through a new game or through changes to your currrent campaign, you might also want to post your observations in Actual Play. I always find those kind of discussions fascinating.

Regards,
Mark

Another sticking-point, I think, is likely to be you yourself. You say you've never done shared-GM stuff before, right? I think that even if all the players are gung-ho about giving this a try, you may have a tendency -- especially under pressure in an exciting moment -- to take the reins.

Mark's mentioned some recent threads about transitioning and how it rarely works smoothly. I'd also urge you to do a search for "No Myth" and the many threads that spun out of Fang Langford (LeJoueur)'s various discussions of this mode of GM-ing. That wasn't shared GM-ing, but the discussions were about letting go, sort of a "use the Force" approach to GM-ing. If you're going to move to broad narrative control, you're going to have to give up everything you know about keeping things running and keeping things focused -- these won't be your problem or job any more.

As Mark suggested, I think you ought to try shifting to a whole new system. I happen to believe that you can shift system and keep the game-world, but a very drastic shift is needed. My suggestion would be something like The Pool: very simple, all-encompassing, total control handed to everyone all the time. You want something that doesn't allow anyone off the hook ever, and ideally gives you (the old GM) no options for asserting control.

But, as Mark said, the #1 thing should be: are you really sure they might actually want you to step down? Make sure you explain this to them clearlly, and think it through yourself: you will not be the GM in any way at all any more. Sure, it might creep back in in a minor way, but you have to go with the assumption that there is no longer any GM. Try that one on them. Tell them about your new character -- you know, the one you're going to play right along with everyone else (what else would you do?).

Good luck, and come to the session or the pre-session discussions ready and willing to listen.

Chris Lehrich

Hi Nigel,

As someone who is making the transition myself, I suggest you read Dust Devils. I think it has many characteristics that recommend it for the newbie narrativist: it has a moderately broad scope, simple rules, accessible themes, and a kick-ass introductory adventure.

That doesn't answer your question about how to transition within your current game but, as the current GM, even just reading Dust Devils will get your brain working in the direction you are looking for. At least, it's working for me.

Hello,

Just for purposes of clarification ...

... shared GM-authority of whatever sort is not synonymous with Narrativism. It's a technique that isn't even correlated with Narrativist play. I kind of wish people would think about that a little.

The only possible connection I can think of is the "no GM Force" element of Narrativist play, which is the opposite of sharing authority over a component of play.

Best,
Ron

Ron's right.

If you're really looking to move toward narrativism and player-driven plot, you probably want to look at Sorcerer and/or Legends of Alyria. Both games retain someone in the referee's chair, but change his duties such that the players are now taking primary responsibility for story. If you're trying to eliminate the role of the referee entirely, Universalis and Donjon seem to be the poster children--but Donjon, at least, is not narrativist.

--M. J. Young

Ok, with this and the other thread on Mike's rant just eploding, would it be asking too much, if the "experts" (=whoever feels like they've got any expertise on the transition to narr play) got together, sorted this out and came back with some nice solid advice for would-be-narrativists.
See, I get an incredible kick out of reading actual play threads from narrativist play, and I want to try it really badly.
I got a couple of White Wolves that might be interested, or at least willing to try something different, I feel I'm already at the best possible source for advice, and yet I feel like I keep getting mixed signals.

Hi there,

Well, there are two sources of mixed signals. (1) A given poster might be over-enthusiastic about using the term "Narrativist," and sling it about when he's only enthusiastic about a particular technique.* Since I can't (and don't want to) regulate every post before it's posted, this sort of thing is bound to happen. Your only defense is to read every reference to "this is Narrativist [or whatever]" with a certain skepticism. That's what I do.

(2) Some folks, most of which are not present at the Forge, sling the term about in an intentionally confusing way because they, themselves, are not sure what it means and resent that it might mean something to others. Reading their posts is guaranteed to be confusing if you buy into their smokescreen that they're really offering criticism.

My main recommendation for you is to recognize that we really are working off the same definitions, which are not controversial as I understand it (and haven't been for a very long time). The Narrativism: Step On Up essay is in good shape, makes sense (as far as I can tell given the feedback), and is only really sinking in among the Forge community right now. So when in doubt, review that article, and if necessary, ask any questions from there.

But be very wary about merely "soaking up" what Narrativism (or any of the Creative Agendas) is based on reading posts. A certain percent of the time, a poorly-chosen or over-enthusiastic phrase will tip you right off into the bogs.

Best,
Ron

* Actually, this happens regarding all three modes all the time.

M. J. Young wrote: Ron's right.

If you're really looking to move toward narrativism and player-driven plot, you probably want to look at Sorcerer and/or Legends of Alyria. Both games retain someone in the referee's chair, but change his duties such that the players are now taking primary responsibility for story. If you're trying to eliminate the role of the referee entirely, Universalis and Donjon seem to be the poster children--but Donjon, at least, is not narrativist.

--M. J. Young

Ron Edwards wrote: My main recommendation for you is to recognize that we really are working off the same definitions, which are not controversial as I understand it (and haven't been for a very long time). The Narrativism: Step On Up essay is in good shape, makes sense (as far as I can tell given the feedback), and is only really sinking in among the Forge community right now. So when in doubt, review that article, and if necessary, ask any questions from there.