By Authority, I mean who gets to determine what?  Are you willing to even turn over parts of your character to the GM's vision, or do you like games where every player is the GM?  Or something in between?  Poll coming

Standard is my vote.  Most of the games that I either play in or run there is a set of character options based on the world we're using.  The players have free reign with those options to build their characters.  Beyond that it's the GM's world.  While the players set the direction of the game after that first session, the GM is still in control of the challenges and how the world reacts to the players' decisions.

Quote from: MaddmanBy Authority, I mean who gets to determine what?  Are you willing to even turn over parts of your character to the GM's vision, or do you like games where every player is the GM?  Or something in between?  Poll coming

I enjoy a good shared world campaign, but I'm perfectly happy to play in "standard" campaigns (and usually do).

I came to roleplaying a bit differently than most standard roleplayers in that D&D was not my gateway RPG. I'd played exactly one single-player one-shot of AD&D years before really joining the hobby.  I knew about the hobby, I had lots of geeky male friends who played D&D, but I started seriously rolaplaying on my own with Ars Magica, and so was introduced to the concepts of shared worlds, troupe-style play, rotating GMs, and even shared characters at the same time I was introduced to roleplaying itself. Lion Rampant's first product (before even Ars Magica itself) was Whimsy Cards, a deck of cards that allowed the players to influence the direction of the story through gameplay.

I don't have nearly the same reaction to the idea that I've seen from many, many roleplayers who were introduced to roleplaying through the more traditional gateway of starting with D&D and its concepts. I look back fondly on most of my shared world campaigns.

I'm a fan of shared world or standard.  I haven't had enough experience with the other options to know if I would like them more or less

I like the limited influence myself.  Now that I've used it I don't know that I'd want to go back as a GM.  It really helps shake things up, because often the players will think of things that I didn't.

And I think in most games there's some amount of this going on, even if the system doesn't have some resource or structure for it.  Let's take the classic cinematic move of a swashbuckling hero cutting down a chandelier onto the heads of the villians.  Now this is dependant on several things - is there a chandelier in the room?  Are the bad guys standing under it?  Is there a rope nearby for them to cut?

With a standard game all this is basically left to GM fiat.  A strict literal GM might take the approach that if he didn't say it was in the room, then there's no chandelier.  He might roll some chance that the bad guys are under it, as well as where the rope holding it is tied down.  A GM that runs more fast and loose might say 'sure!' and let them do it.  But in a way what's happening is the GM is letting the player have some authority for this case.

Personally, I prefer putting these things under a resource management system.  It helps keep the GM fair and all the players on the same page.  Say we have Bob and Steve.  Bob has a flair for the dramatic and is good at thinking up cool stuff like this.  Steve, not so much, he prefers to just throw himself into the thick of the action instead of thinking up tricks.  Bob can use his points to do stunts and fancy showoff stuff, Steve can use his points for straight up mechanical bonuses or whatever else the system lets him do with them.

I also like the bonuses to be big.  The Action Points in many d20 varients that let you add +1d6 to a d20 roll leave me pretty cold.  That doesn't feel like a big enough bonus, especially in system where you only get a very few of them.  I want these points to virtually guarantee success.  Rerolling the d20, or adding +10 would be more acceptable.  This all has to be scaled for the genre in question of course, but in general when some points like this are used I want them to be important.

I'll play in any number of combinations from that list provided I know what I'm getting into.  I prefer shared world though.

Part of the appeal for me as a player or gm is the way how the whole game is structured. As a player I like to immerse myself in the setting and let the actions of my character influence the world. Now with regards to the rules, I'm sure various systems do have specific rules that encourages a kind of collaborative style of play, but on the whole as long as my character engages with the world I'm really not to bothered as to the amount of control I have over the world building or how much control I have as a player using the rules to influence the game.

The best part of being a GM to me is breathing atmosphere into a setting. I'd like to think I have a very individual style. I'd like to think that my players enjoy this aspect of my games. This is not to say that they don't have any input into the game, but rather said input is limited. If they have great ideas, I'd steal'em but thats about it.

Sharing duties with me...well that's also out of the question. I run games a specific way hence I would really not dig too many cooks in the kitchen.

Sheesh, this makes me sound like a tyrant. But really shared world concepts and the like are really not for me. The players generally influence the world in character or they pass along some of their ideas all of which should correspond to the frame work of the world.

Regards,
David R

I vted limited, though I don't use mechanics for it (my players didn't want to) – but if they want to go on and invent an NPC or anything, and it's not blatantly designed to overcome the current challenge ("Hey, I know someone who speaks Amarinthian – it's my long-lost siter-in-law, who just now turns the corner!"), then by all means go for it.

Interestingly, as a player, I would rather play in shared world, unless I was sure the DM was fine with and able to do limited influence.

I have run both Standard and Shared-World.  (I'm running Arcana Evolved right now, even though there's a mechanic to influence the system, hero points are rare enough I wouldn't consider it much of a limited influence game.)  I'm making my foray into Limited Influence with a FATE game I plan on running soon.

-O

I've tried GM less, and it can have a tendency to get very unfocused. Fun, but most of the time, the end result has been pretty weird.

I like players to have plenty of influence on the story ("hey, wouldn't it be cool if X isn't just our patron's servant, but really an agent of Y? Then at the most dramatic moment, he'll betray us all"). So limited influence is my preference, but I'll scratch the word "small" in the description of the player influence.

Quote from: Dr_AvalancheI've tried GM less, and it can have a tendency to get very unfocused. Fun, but most of the time, the end result has been pretty weird.

I like players to have plenty of influence on the story ("hey, wouldn't it be cool if X isn't just our patron's servant, but really an agent of Y? Then at the most dramatic moment, he'll betray us all"). So limited influence is my preference, but I'll scratch the word "small" in the description of the player influence.

What I mean by that option are things like Buffy's Drama Points, Adventure!'s Dramatic Editing, and other such mechanics.  Where the player can spend a game resource or otherwise reliably be able to influence the game.  Even then, these things are limited and subject to GM approval/adjustment.  If you're doing things like players introducing entire scenes and making major changes to the setting then you're moving toward the 'GMless' realm.  That's what I meant by 'small'.

obryn - I'd include AE's Hero points, though I imagine like most of the d20 ones it's because they don't have a big enough effect and you don't get too many of them.  In my Star Wars game I set it so you got Cha Mod +3, +6 for Force Users for Force Points.  I like that a little better.

Quote from: MaddmanWhat I mean by that option are things like Buffy's Drama Points, Adventure!'s Dramatic Editing, and other such mechanics. Where the player can spend a game resource or otherwise reliably be able to influence the game. Even then, these things are limited and subject to GM approval/adjustment. If you're doing things like players introducing entire scenes and making major changes to the setting then you're moving toward the 'GMless' realm. That's what I meant by 'small'.

Yeah, that's what I figured, but GM less to me would be something like Universalis, where strictly speaking nobody has any more power over the story than anybody else. There is no GM.
 
If there had been an option between limited influence and GM-less, that's what I would have answered. As it is, I fall closer to the former than the latter in my preferences.

Quote from: Maddmanobryn - I'd include AE's Hero points, though I imagine like most of the d20 ones it's because they don't have a big enough effect and you don't get too many of them.  In my Star Wars game I set it so you got Cha Mod +3, +6 for Force Users for Force Points.  I like that a little better.

Actually, Hero Points are huge in AE.  I don't have the exact rules in front of me, but the most basic one is +20 to a single die roll.  You can also avoid a death-blow and end up with permanent scarring or something like that.

A character - unless they have a certain feat - tends to only get one every couple of levels.  

-O

I can post in here? But I'm not a member of the Swine group.

Oh well. And here I thought I could't answer the poll (one like this should have gone in the general section).

Looks like Nunkinland shares the typical Internet love of odd ball play styles. More then 3/4 have gone with the SWINE on this.

Before I answer the poll, a question. What is meant by "limited to keep to the GM's vision"?

Does this include requiring players to created characters such that they meet campaign requirements and tone?

Quote from: gleichmanBefore I answer the poll, a question. What is meant by "limited to keep to the GM's vision"?

Does this include requiring players to created characters such that they meet campaign requirements and tone?

I'd say more in the lines of the GM occasionally dictating player action - where the other end of the scale represents the GM giving up power to the players this option indicates the players giving up power to the GM.  I've actually heard of people that play this way, though I'd find it rather distasteful.

edit - and anyone can post here, I believe.