Quote from: TonyLBBlakkie:  Yes, but games (and game-groups) where the emphasis is on exploring each other's characters are not as common as games where the emphasis is on exploring the world.

These are not necessarily secrets about a character at all. They can be external secrets.

Which reminds me, I forgot another danger with them. It tends towards generating PCvPC conflict, because suspisions can arise.  Even when it is about very external things. How much of that a given player can handle is quite variable. Turning the entire game on it for extended periods can easily create too much tension.

Investigative games. That's the big one right there. If you are playing in an investigative adventure, scenario or even system like CoC, the GM/DM has to have sole authority in the game IMO. How does it go otherwise? It's no fun playing this type of game if everyone around the table knows how it's going to play out and 'who did it' because they are all involved in the conception of the idea. What are you supposed to do? Pretend that you are surprised when you find clues? That seems to be passive participation to me.

Arbitration is another one. Having a sole arbiter whilst playing tends to cut down on meta-discussions and arguments. If the scope of the game and rules are explained beforehand, all the better, but things normally crop up that need to be addressed during the game and having a sole authority speeds these things up. Otherwise you're in 'true democracy' country and judging by the democratic systems of every democratic nation in the world, which are not 'true democracies', having such a thing ultimately results in chaos.

Quote from: BalbinusI've found shared authorial control tends to lead to rather wacky anything goes settings, often rather lowest common denominator ones.

I think the end result depends on several factors, including participant buy in for the overall premise, scope of control and frequency of input. Certainly, it can lead to kitchen sink games, but I think that's more a function of the participants rather than the process.

Personally, I very much dislike the GM as God paradigm. Over the years, I've strayed farther and farther from it, and am happier because of it.

Seanchai

Quote from: One Horse TownInvestigative games. That's the big one right there. If you are playing in an investigative adventure, scenario or even system like CoC, the GM/DM has to have sole authority in the game IMO. How does it go otherwise? It's no fun playing this type of game if everyone around the table knows how it's going to play out and 'who did it' because they are all involved in the conception of the idea. What are you supposed to do? Pretend that you are surprised when you find clues? That seems to be passive participation to me.

Those boxed Murder Mysteries show that this can indeed be done. Absolutely nobody there knows who did it except the guilty person (sometimes not even them to till the end). And fun to boot!  Come to think of it, that's another place rife with 'player' secrets.

Quote from: blakkieThose boxed Murder Mysteries show that this can indeed be done. Absolutely nobody there knows who did it except the guilty person (sometimes not even them to till the end). And fun to boot!  Come to think of it, that's another place rife with 'player' secrets.

Absolutely, for a one off game or two. But for a longer term roleplaying campaign? I can't see CoC being run that way satisfactorily over 15 sessions or so.

Quote from: jrientsActually, I don't smoke at home either.

Bloody hell!

RPGPundit

Quote from: One Horse TownInvestigative games. That's the big one right there. If you are playing in an investigative adventure, scenario or even system like CoC, the GM/DM has to have sole authority in the game IMO. How does it go otherwise? It's no fun playing this type of game if everyone around the table knows how it's going to play out and 'who did it' because they are all involved in the conception of the idea. What are you supposed to do? Pretend that you are surprised when you find clues? That seems to be passive participation to me.

For these type of games I prefer the GM to act as a referee, rather than being able to change the mystery mid-game to suit their desired outcome / story.

Ok, yeah, this thread is getting moved to the Theory section. I hope it continues there and all who are interested follow it there, but frankly this subject is way closer to theory than anything else, and belongs there.

RPGPundit

Thanks for the discussion, all.

Quote from: One Horse TownAbsolutely, for a one off game or two. But for a longer term roleplaying campaign? I can't see CoC being run that way satisfactorily over 15 sessions or so.

In which way, that nobody knows whodunit till the end?  Why?

Quote from: RPGPunditBloody hell!

RPGPundit

How long have you been out of the country? You might be rudely shocked when you come back for you visit. Calgary was, as of this New Years, the last major city in the country to outright ban building smoking. Vancouver has been this way for quite some time, all of BC actually due to provincial WCB regulations.

P.S.  I for one am enjoying it. I can actually go to a bar now and have the option of not feeling like shit the next day.

Quote from: BalbinusI've found shared authorial control tends to lead to rather wacky anything goes settings, often rather lowest common denominator ones.

On the other hand, since it's come up elsewhere recently, consider Chancel creation in Nobilis, which allows the players themselves to design what for their characters is usually the centre of the setting, a private realm where they effectively rule as gods, while the rest of the universe is set up by the GM. There are a few limitations to the process: anything that would give the PCs an advantage in or against the outside world must be purchased with points, and nothing there can violate the basic assumptions of the game (so no telepathic mind control over your rivals, or swords that can kill immortals). Apart from that, if the players wish to lord it over an apocalyptic landscape filled with an army of zombies, that's what they'll get.

Quote from: TonyLBThe authority of the DM is the foundation of some kinds of social contract on which functional roleplaying can be based.

That is the best summation of this simple truth that I've heard in a great while. The GM can be night unto a god, and that works well for some people (thus, it often forms the foundation of the social contract for such people). The thing that many folks tend forget is that there are potentially as many types of social contracts as there are individual game groups.

Quote from: jdrakehThe GM can be night unto a god, and that works well for some people (thus, it often forms the foundation of the social contract for such people). The thing that many folks tend forget is that there are potentially as many types of social contracts as there are individual game groups.

Let's assume, for the sake of argument, that your assertion is true.  I have no reason not to, except to quibble with bits and pieces, but I like to leave the option open...

Anyway, if you link this up with Pundit's perspective, I think you start to home in on what he's saying (as much disagreement as I have with Pundy in other areas, on this I see his perpspective) in some of his "landmarks."

If you allow that there are likely as many types of social contract as gaming groups out there, and then you look at what people are playing, it seems obvious that the most desired (that is, the most played) model is the GM as final arbiter of control.  As I've said in other threads, this does not require the GM retain all control, just that the GM has final say in who gets control.

Since most people voluntarily play D&D moreso than any other game, that model must be the most sought after model (this does not even include adding up all of the other games with a similar model).  Saying this in no way changes the desire of some other few to design and play in other ways, just that GM as final authority is the most voluntarily used.

The thing that many folks tend forget is that while there are potentially as many types of social contracts as there are individual game groups, the most prevalent is, and always has been, voted on by the almighty dollar (or your country's equivalent), GM central.

Quote from: James J SkachSince most people voluntarily play D&D moreso than any other game, that model must be the most sought after model (this does not even include adding up all of the other games with a similar model).

This is a logical fallacy (specifically, it's confirmation bias). That D&D is the most played RPG does not mean (or even suggest) that the DM as final arbitrator is the most sought after social contract model unless you're willfully ignoring all of the other reasons that people play D&D (which you seem to be doing).