Well, I didn't mean exactly fixed plots in the sense of "A must be followed by B, and B must be followed by C". It could equally be that you have given the players an interesting situation to deal with. Or that some NPC has a plan which will intersect with the PCs' activities. Either way, it could happen that the players come up with something you've overlooked, which reduces the situation to a triviality. I'd rather let them have a well-earned anticlimax than deliberately throw artificial constraints in their way, that just frustrate the players. One could say I'm not yet good enough at planning improvising, and that may be, but I'd rather develop skills and tools that'll help me answer "what's next" after the players get what they want, than hold them off just for the sake of prolonging a session.

Quote from: RandallS;224743My campaigns normally involve allowing the players to go where they will and do what they want to do to the world as it exists. They have a lot of freedom, more than in many campaigns because I'm very good at making up stuff on the fly.

Adding a tavern where there wasn't one would be easy to do, but doing so just because the players are looking for one would often be a bad idea for my style of campaign. The lack of a tavern where the players would expect one could easily become an adventure hook (e.g. the village's nasty lord treats the villages like slave labor and, worse, does not hold with drink or other uncontrolled forms of relaxation) or provide interesting background (e.g. the villagers belong to an obscure religious sect that does not allow eating or drinking in public). Or it might even be that the village isn't big enough to support a tavern, but old one-legged John makes ale and everyone goes to his place most evenings. Even if it is not something they choose to act on immediately, the information gives them more options for the future.

And this is exactly what I meant with "Say yes unless there's a reason to say no."



-clash

Quote from: VBWyrde;224423The false part of the current argument is that since the Players often decide what happens in the game world (the examples as you point out however are each spurious in its own way) that this means that they are defacto deciders - therefore, what do you really need a GM for anyway?

Just to clarify, most of the playerocracies I've seen in action have a GM and make good use of the office.  There's nothing inherent in the distinguishing characteristics that I've noticed to imply that going without a GM is a more efficient way of getting to the fun.


Cheers,
Roger

Quote from: flyingmice;224465I would say "Say Yes or Roll the Dice" means you don't want a GM, since player fiat trumps GM fiat.

Interesting.  I hadn't really expected people to take this interpretation.

To clarify:  Say Yes or Roll Dice is a mode of operation for all the participants in a playerocracy.  Players and GMs.

The degree to which player fiat trumps GM fiat, or visa versa, is an out-of-game agreement that varies considerably between groups and between games within groups.


Cheers,
Roger

Just a quick note to many of the people who have replied with the general sentiment of "Those characteristics don't describe the groups I normally play in":

That's good stuff to hear; I'm always interested in hearing how other groups approach and work their games and their play.

I'd be happy to read any forked threads from people wanting to describe the distinguishing characteristics of their own groups.


Cheers,
Roger

Quote from: Roger;224984Interesting.  I hadn't really expected people to take this interpretation.

To clarify:  Say Yes or Roll Dice is a mode of operation for all the participants in a playerocracy.  Players and GMs.

The degree to which player fiat trumps GM fiat, or visa versa, is an out-of-game agreement that varies considerably between groups and between games within groups.


Cheers,
Roger

Then what role does the GM serve? Setting is constructed ad hoc by consensus. Arbitration are set by agreement between the players before the game. The players' wishes cannot be vetoed, merely complicated, so all opposition is at the whim and sufferance of the players. Any player can declare game over at any time, whether the other players agree or not. Thus winning over the opposition is a figment of the players' minds, or must come directly from the other players.

In this assumption, the most important duties of the GM are nullified, reducing the GM function to no more than at most the level of the Banker in a monopoly game. Why keep the vestigal organ? It no longer serves its purpose.  You have taken the GM's purpose and duties, and distributed them among the other players, by this one phrase.

Of course, that may be what you want to do. Let's just not pretend it isn't so.

-clash

As somewhat of an aside...

So "Say Yes or Roll the Dice" lets the players have control over something that in a traditional RPG is the responsibility of the GM: controlling the game world.

What about the GM using that with the Player's Characters?

"Say Yes or Roll the Dice" to allow the GM to say how one of the Characters responds in a given situation.  Maybe there's something scary (but non-magical) and it's to see if the character runs away.  Maybe it's a roll vs. Willpower (or whatever) to make them act within their alignment.  Maybe it's just a "veto" on stupid behaviour.  "No, your Malkavian/Kender doesn't [insert asshat behaviour]... they sit on the floor and rock back and forth humming a creepy little tune to themselves instead -- Say yes or roll the dice"

I know some players would object to that sort of thing -- and I suspect they might be the same players that would be enthusiastic about "Say Yes or Roll the Dice" when it only applied to the GM.

If you want "say yes or roll the dice" then it seems fair that it should flow both ways.

Quote from: flyingmice;225047Then what role does the GM serve?

That does seem to be the burning question.  In general, the GMs I've seen in this sort of play group tend to do the same sorts of things they do anywhere else.

Quote from: flyingmice;225047Setting is constructed ad hoc by consensus.

Sometimes, but not necessarily.  It's certainly not unusual to use a 'third-party' setting, at least as a baseline -- Greyhawk, or Amber, or Star Wars Universe, or Middle Earth, or whatnot.

Quote from: flyingmice;225047all opposition is at the whim and sufferance of the players.

This is largely the case.  In my experience it has been a very good thing -- it gives the players a real duty and power in keeping the game fun, and not boring.  If they do find themselves in something boring, it's as much their own fault as anyone else's.

Quote from: flyingmice;225047Thus winning over the opposition is a figment of the players' minds, or must come directly from the other players.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this -- can you elaborate?

Quote from: flyingmice;225047You have taken the GM's purpose and duties, and distributed them among the other players, by this one phrase.

The playerocracy certainly opens the door to this possibility, but it's not required by the playstyle or even especially common.  Still, it's nice to have options with such things.


Cheers,
Roger

Quote from: Roger;225227That does seem to be the burning question.  In general, the GMs I've seen in this sort of play group tend to do the same sorts of things they do anywhere else.

Would you care to list/detail the tasks that the GM in those sort of groups do?  Is that still within the scope of this topic?

I fail to see how the GM saying "No, theres no nuclear warhead" encourages other players to act like jerks.

If the GM says "sure, theres a warhead" that DOES, because now the power is in the players hands, and whatever they say goes.