Quote from: -E.What exactly are you asking? Is it "How does a game help people successfully mix things?"

Both "How do people adopt roles," (though I expect that's pretty straightforward) and "How do people adopt roles that are complementary."

For instance, the D&D split of "GM makes world," and "Players make character" works quite well.

A (hypothetical) split of "GM creates the fate of the characters" and "Player make the important decisions for their characters" would (I think) obviously not work as well.  Those roles are separated at a point that makes it easy to complete one of them independently of the other.  They are distinct, but they're not split at a workable place.

Similarly, a split of "GM decides only who is under threat (e.g. the damsel in distress) but not the nature of the threat" and "Players decide who their characters are and why they want to rescue the person under threat" would not work either ... those roles leave a big hole unaccounted for in the middle:  Who the heck makes and plays the threat?

There are divisions of roles that let people make pieces that work well together, and then there are divisions of roles that don't.  How do we create and encourage the good ones, and not the bad ones, both as designers creating guidelines and as game-groups in actual play?

Quote from: TonyLBBoth "How do people adopt roles," (though I expect that's pretty straightforward) and "How do people adopt roles that are complementary."

For instance, the D&D split of "GM makes world," and "Players make character" works quite well.

A (hypothetical) split of "GM creates the fate of the characters" and "Player make the important decisions for their characters" would (I think) obviously not work as well.  Those roles are separated at a point that makes it easy to complete one of them independently of the other.  They are distinct, but they're not split at a workable place.

Similarly, a split of "GM decides only who is under threat (e.g. the damsel in distress) but not the nature of the threat" and "Players decide who their characters are and why they want to rescue the person under threat" would not work either ... those roles leave a big hole unaccounted for in the middle:  Who the heck makes and plays the threat?

There are divisions of roles that let people make pieces that work well together, and then there are divisions of roles that don't.  How do we create and encourage the good ones, and not the bad ones, both as designers creating guidelines and as game-groups in actual play?

Understood -- here's what I think:

The foundation principle is what the game should look like and what's important.

The traditional / D&D model works for players who want to experience the game from a single viewpoint, much the way a protagonist in a story would and for GM's who want to do a lot story-telling-type activities (I don't mean railroading)

For those players (which I believe are a majority), I assert that this "works quite well" for two reasons

1) All the decisions are accounted for (to your point about other models leaving gaps)
2) This model defines a story-telling, meta-game role (the GM) and a set of roles with far more limited meta-game responsibility (the non-GM players).

My observation is that most roleplayers prefer to leave the meta-narrative stuff to the GM and focus on playing their characters (often, I think, with some degree of immersion as a goal).

A smaller but still sizable minority prefer to do more story-telling-type-stuff and the GM role is pretty much perfectly defined for them.

But clearly there are populations of players who wouldn't agree it works well, and prefer different models -- I guess I'm asserting that "works well" is largely based on preference ("what you want from the game.")

My guess is that it's hard to figure out exactly how any specific split will work out in theory -- this might be a case where play testing is required.

I don't think the completeness issue is that big a deal -- that probably is something that thinking about would resolve...

One other thought: In practice even traditional games tend to be fairly fluid -- with people creating bar maids and inns, and relatives-who-live-in-town and so on, even in non-GM roles, with the GM acting more as an editor.

In my experience, this kind of fluidity is rarely problematic and often a great benefit to the game...

Do you see any advantages to formalizing this decision-making authority beyond the usual (somewhat fluid) level of formality?

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: -E.Do you see any advantages to formalizing this decision-making authority beyond the usual (somewhat fluid) level of formality?

What, like "Okay, in this phase (2.3.3-a) of game-play player #1 will be assigned the role of World-Creator, this role having properties as described in sub-paragraphs below" and like that?  No.  I think that people tend to slip into these roles pretty easily.  If you say "Hey, this is the character creation process, in which you create your character.  Here are the things about them that you create," it's pretty easy for folks to say "Okay then!  That's my role at this time, and I'll trust that what the game says will eventually make things work well."

I do think that designers can benefit from being conscious of the way this is working behind the scenes, though.

For instance, the Amber DRPG in its broadest sense has a potential problem:  Players are expected to create Shadows (i.e. do world-generation) during their character generation phase.  The GM-world-builder and player-world-builder roles might become muddied and unclear.  But you can tell that Wujcik knows this (on at least some level) because the ADRPG addresses this problem by making reasonably clear (though not perfect) rules about how much you have to pay for each instance where such things step brazenly out into the no-mans-land between what is definitely fine for the player and what is definitely off-limits.  So you can pay for things like Trump-proof worlds, and the like.  That helps map out a border that would otherwise be fluid and (possibly) problematic.

By contrast, though I'm not eager to name names, I've encountered games (even games I rather like) that leave such fuzzy borders unaddressed, and suffer for it.  If the designers had been conscious of the way their rules were helping to shape the roles people take in the game, I suspect that these problems might have been more clear to them, and might have been corrected to the benefit of the games.

Quote from: TonyLBWhat, like "Okay, in this phase (2.3.3-a) of game-play player #1 will be assigned the role of World-Creator, this role having properties as described in sub-paragraphs below" and like that?  No.  I think that people tend to slip into these roles pretty easily.  If you say "Hey, this is the character creation process, in which you create your character.  Here are the things about them that you create," it's pretty easy for folks to say "Okay then!  That's my role at this time, and I'll trust that what the game says will eventually make things work well."

I do think that designers can benefit from being conscious of the way this is working behind the scenes, though.

For instance, the Amber DRPG in its broadest sense has a potential problem:  Players are expected to create Shadows (i.e. do world-generation) during their character generation phase.  The GM-world-builder and player-world-builder roles might become muddied and unclear.  But you can tell that Wujcik knows this (on at least some level) because the ADRPG addresses this problem by making reasonably clear (though not perfect) rules about how much you have to pay for each instance where such things step brazenly out into the no-mans-land between what is definitely fine for the player and what is definitely off-limits.  So you can pay for things like Trump-proof worlds, and the like.  That helps map out a border that would otherwise be fluid and (possibly) problematic.

By contrast, though I'm not eager to name names, I've encountered games (even games I rather like) that leave such fuzzy borders unaddressed, and suffer for it.  If the designers had been conscious of the way their rules were helping to shape the roles people take in the game, I suspect that these problems might have been more clear to them, and might have been corrected to the benefit of the games.

Completely agree with the principle -- I'm not familiar enough with Amber to be clear on the example, but I think paying points of some kind ("currency") for the privilege to create an advantageous world (or NPC) can be properly looked at as a question of game balance more than shared authorial control...

Not saying it can't be looked at both ways, but there is a precedent for paying character generation points for the right to define advantageous game-world elements.

But maybe Amber is significantly different: In games I *am* familiar with (GURPS, Hero), the GM has full and final editorial control and can reject any suggested contact, patron, or DNPC or (less dramatically) minimize it's impact on the game by steering the story away from the player-created artifact.

If that's not the case in Amber, then it probably is a fundamentally different situation.

Other than completeness (all the decision-making authority accounted for), or general vagueness about who-does-what-when, do you have any failure examples?

IME, things like DNPC's (Hero) or contacts & patrons can be problematic if the player defines things that are at odds with the world or more powerful / helpful than the points would imply (e.g. "My DNPC is the ultra-wealthy owner of MegaCorp. I'm effectively getting points for a very useful contact.")

GM editorial authority fixes this -- the player isn't really completely empowered to make those decisions; final authority explicitly rests with the GM.

Maybe that's one of the ways power-splits can work?

Cheers,
-E.

Quote from: TonyLBThe players create characters that they like ("Look, Morg is a half-giant Barbarian-Thief ... he rocks!").

The GM creates a situation that she likes ("Aw man, so you're trying to climb to the top of the necromancer's tower, and he just plain throws bodies down this huge well, so first you're dealing with his rejects ... zombies and ghouls and shit ... but the higher you climb, the more you end up dealing with the prizes of his art, until finally you're up against the man himself.")

Then, and this is the interesting bit, these two elements come together in play to make (one hopes) a whole greater than the sum of its parts.  If the player says "Any story with Morg in it will make a cool story" and the GM says "Any story of a party assaulting this tower will be awesome" then they get a story everybody likes by having Morg and his allies assault the tower.

But part of how that happens is that each of the things people made individually are made within certain (often unstated) limits.  Now D&D (for instance) draws the limits in different places than (again, for instance) Sorcerer, but they both have limits that are intended to help people create ingredients that will function well together.

In D&D Morg's player would not get to say that the necromancer is his long lost brother, and only Morg knows the secret to his downfall.  In Sorcerer that'd be fine.

In Sorcerer the GM would not get to say that the necromancer is an abomination, and that there is no possibility of alliance with such a creature of evil.  In D&D that would be fine.

Different games expect people to create different parts of the game ... and yet, even wildly different games can succeed at the goal of helping people to make two parts that automatically mix well together.

How does a game do that?  For folks who have house-ruled or otherwise designed these interfaces, where do you start?

I'm not so sure I agree with your Sorcerer / D&D split. I think it would be well in line for the GM to have an antagonist who is insane and would reject any alliance with others (now, maybe your statement hinges on "creature of evil"--but, again, if the D&D characters are all evil and so is the necromancer then I think the possibility of alliance is very strong.

I am not aware of a rule (from having read and played it) in Sorcerer that lets players declare familial relations for GM-created NPCs, either. I don't know that "it'd be fine" for all players.

That said, I think that you asked how these roles work and I believe there's a model that most people grasp (note: this doesn't apply as well to highly competitive gaming):

Basic Roles:
.- Reader: the audience. An Immersed player. A GM sitting back, watching the PCs deal with a well defined situation. Etc.
.- Author: A player meta-gaming to direct the story, A GM making a scenario. A Player making a character, a GM making pacing decisions, etc.
.- Editor: A player saying "But my character wouldn't do that." A GM saying "No, you're not the necromancer's brother."

Even in games like DitV these roles are defined well within the bounds of the traditional roleplaying model. When someone puts in creative input (Author) other people are either Editors or Readers (I'm formulating a grand model here on the fly--but bear with me). Although it may not be entirely clear what the boundaries are for each role and each person, the normal nuanced human communication will smooth that out. If my D&D player says "I'm the necromancer's brother"--and it's really cool--then I, as the GM, may go "... damn ... hadn't planned that--but I'll run with it!" Or even "Crud. If I don't go along with this, the rest of the group will know I'm an over-controlling dork!"

It's not systematized but I think it's intuitive for a lot of people.

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoThat said, I think that you asked how these roles work and I believe there's a model that most people grasp (note: this doesn't apply as well to highly competitive gaming):

Basic Roles:
.- Reader: the audience. An Immersed player. A GM sitting back, watching the PCs deal with a well defined situation. Etc.
.- Author: A player meta-gaming to direct the story, A GM making a scenario. A Player making a character, a GM making pacing decisions, etc.
.- Editor: A player saying "But my character wouldn't do that." A GM saying "No, you're not the necromancer's brother."

Even in games like DitV these roles are defined well within the bounds of the traditional roleplaying model. When someone puts in creative input (Author) other people are either Editors or Readers (I'm formulating a grand model here on the fly--but bear with me). Although it may not be entirely clear what the boundaries are for each role and each person, the normal nuanced human communication will smooth that out. If my D&D player says "I'm the necromancer's brother"--and it's really cool--then I, as the GM, may go "... damn ... hadn't planned that--but I'll run with it!" Or even "Crud. If I don't go along with this, the rest of the group will know I'm an over-controlling dork!"

It's not systematized but I think it's intuitive for a lot of people.

-Marco

Hi Marco:

It reminds me of that skit in "Who's Line is it, Anyway?" Where one has to be lying down, one standing, and one sitting...

I think this is a good insight, and not RPG specific. It happens in team meetings at work, in a sports huddle, in relationships, etc. That's why it is an intuitive process.

-clash

Quote from: MarcoBasic Roles:
.- Reader: the audience. An Immersed player. A GM sitting back, watching the PCs deal with a well defined situation. Etc.
.- Author: A player meta-gaming to direct the story, A GM making a scenario. A Player making a character, a GM making pacing decisions, etc.
.- Editor: A player saying "But my character wouldn't do that." A GM saying "No, you're not the necromancer's brother."

Even in games like DitV these roles are defined well within the bounds of the traditional roleplaying model. When someone puts in creative input (Author) other people are either Editors or Readers (I'm formulating a grand model here on the fly--but bear with me). Although it may not be entirely clear what the boundaries are for each role and each person, the normal nuanced human communication will smooth that out. If my D&D player says "I'm the necromancer's brother"--and it's really cool--then I, as the GM, may go "... damn ... hadn't planned that--but I'll run with it!" Or even "Crud. If I don't go along with this, the rest of the group will know I'm an over-controlling dork!"

I don't want to derail this thread, so perhaps in another thread you can explain how Author and Editor are different. I'm curious why you make the distinction.

But please not here, because I think I know what the OP is looking for, but every time I try to answer I get halfway through a long post and stop and think, "No that's not right."  So I'm waiting for others to chime in...

Quote from: James J SkachI don't want to derail this thread, so perhaps in another thread you can explain how Author and Editor are different. I'm curious why you make the distinction.

But please not here, because I think I know what the OP is looking for, but every time I try to answer I get halfway through a long post and stop and think, "No that's not right."  So I'm waiting for others to chime in...

You know, Marco's on to something, as I think that role definition is the primary way a game's rules can guide how game situations evolve. So it wouldn't be a bad idea to explore it a bit.

Not to speak for him, but the Author/Editor split goes like this:

Authors make the statements.
Editors can modify (not necessarily negate or replace) statements for sake of consistency.

It's a puff, puff, pass process from there.

Quote from: JamesVEditors can modify (not necessarily negate or replace) statements for sake of consistency.

Is the "for the sake of consistency" thing essential?

Because I can think of a lot of other reasons ("Because it's so damn cool," "To interface with the rules," "To correct your crappy freakin' english," etc.) that would fall under (at least my) rough intuitive sense of the word "Editor."

I'm not saying that the "for consistency" specialization isn't important (indeed, I think it's a very powerful way to focus the term to the point where it's meaningfully different from Author) but before I go too crazy on it I want to make sure that you meant to say the emphasis I heard

Quote from: TonyLBIs the "for the sake of consistency" thing essential?

Because I can think of a lot of other reasons ("Because it's so damn cool," "To interface with the rules," "To correct your crappy freakin' english," etc.) that would fall under (at least my) rough intuitive sense of the word "Editor."

I'm not saying that the "for consistency" specialization isn't important (indeed, I think it's a very powerful way to focus the term to the point where it's meaningfully different from Author) but before I go too crazy on it I want to make sure that you meant to say the emphasis I heard

We'd have to wait for Marco to be sure, but my gut feeling is that the consistency aspect is one of several reasons for editing.

-clash

Quote from: TonyLBIs the "for the sake of consistency" thing essential?

I don't think so. Anyone in an "Editor" role is modifying, rejecting, (and maybe confirming) input for whatever reason (one of the worst being "Because it's my story and I'm railroading all you players through it," IMO).

But for whatever reason, yes: that's the distinction I was drawing.

-Marco

Quote from: TonyLBIs the "for the sake of consistency" thing essential?

Because I can think of a lot of other reasons ("Because it's so damn cool," "To interface with the rules," "To correct your crappy freakin' english," etc.) that would fall under (at least my) rough intuitive sense of the word "Editor."

I'm not saying that the "for consistency" specialization isn't important (indeed, I think it's a very powerful way to focus the term to the point where it's meaningfully different from Author) but before I go too crazy on it I want to make sure that you meant to say the emphasis I heard

You have good reasons too. I'm gonna see if I can boil it down. When I think of an editor, they work within the author's structure, so if some has an editing role, they can change things that the author has written down, but there are limits, or else they'd just be an author.

Is it possible that as far as roles go it's about varying levels of authorship? That each person has power over events, just within degrees (PC authors player action, GM authors setting reaction).

Marco was nice enough to answer me privately, but it looks like y'all are taking up the subject..

Quote from: JamesVYou have good reasons too. I'm gonna see if I can boil it down. When I think of an editor, they work within the author's structure, so if some has an editing role, they can change things that the author has written down, but there are limits, or else they'd just be an author.

Is it possible that as far as roles go it's about varying levels of authorship? That each person has power over events, just within degrees (PC authors player action, GM authors setting reaction).

This was my issue.  I understand the desire to have a separate role that somehow indicates reaction/confirmation and/or denial of introduced information.

But once you suggest something outside of the idea posed by the Author, are you not now in the Author role?

So to say, for example as a GM, "No, you can't have a bazooka in this bronze age fantasy setting," is Editor.  Saying, for example as another player, "Yeah, and the bazooka will be granted by the God of War that spans all time," is no longer Editor.

Does that make sense?

Quote from: James J SkachMarco was nice enough to answer me privately, but it looks like y'all are taking up the subject..

This was my issue.  I understand the desire to have a separate role that somehow indicates reaction/confirmation and/or denial of introduced information.

But once you suggest something outside of the idea posed by the Author, are you not now in the Author role?

So to say, for example as a GM, "No, you can't have a bazooka in this bronze age fantasy setting," is Editor.  Saying, for example as another player, "Yeah, and the bazooka will be granted by the God of War that spans all time," is no longer Editor.

Does that make sense?

I don't think looking for a definite line is gonna work. I think you have to "look at" intent (which you cannot do objectively--but the theory wasn't proposed in that light). If it is my intent to act as a gatekeepr or deny your input then that's Editor. If I'm grooving creatively, that's Author.

Here's why I'm making the distinction I am: the interplay of one person to another works if both of them have a good handle on the role the other person is trying to play. The GM/Player split in trad-RPGs is pretty good for this.

When I suggest something for the world, even if I am modifying another Player's input, if I'm a Player then I'm usually authoring. If I'm stating something about my character (as a player) if it is modifying something someone else said (let's say the GM says "You're scared!") then I am editing within my area of control (in many games).

There won't always be a fine line. There may be no way to absolutely determine which "role" was dominant. But if the interplay is working, I suggest it's because the general spectrum of the roles is on-target (and I think the "Players play their characters" and "The GM runs the world" is pretty clear for a lot of people).

In other words, "I know it when I see it" is, I think, usually good enough for this.

-Marco

Quote from: MarcoI don't think looking for a definite line is gonna work. I think you have to "look at" intent (which you cannot do objectively--but the theory wasn't proposed in that light). If it is my intent to act as a gatekeepr or deny your input then that's Editor. If I'm grooving creatively, that's Author.

Here's why I'm making the distinction I am: the interplay of one person to another works if both of them have a good handle on the role the other person is trying to play. The GM/Player split in trad-RPGs is pretty good for this.

When I suggest something for the world, even if I am modifying another Player's input, if I'm a Player then I'm usually authoring. If I'm stating something about my character (as a player) if it is modifying something someone else said (let's say the GM says "You're scared!") then I am editing within my area of control (in many games).

There won't always be a fine line. There may be no way to absolutely determine which "role" was dominant. But if the interplay is working, I suggest it's because the general spectrum of the roles is on-target (and I think the "Players play their characters" and "The GM runs the world" is pretty clear for a lot of people).

In other words, "I know it when I see it" is, I think, usually good enough for this.

-Marco

Yup. Actually, I think we're agreeing.

Everybody is an Author when they are adding information.  In some cases, there is an Editor role who can act as gatekeeper - with the power to counter an Author.  If you're not in the process of doing one or the other, you're a Spectator.

It's a nice theory.  It certainly fits the tried-and-true GM/Player split. I'm not sure what else it brings us, accept to formalize names for the roles.

Why is everything always in threes - it really is a magic number.