Quote from: MaddmanI'd say more in the lines of the GM occasionally dictating player action

More a event where the GM puts words in a character's mouth or defines their action instead of a refusal to allow an action then, right?

Quote from: gleichmanMore a event where the GM puts words in a character's mouth or defines their action instead of a refusal to allow an action then, right?

Either one for me.  A GM telling me "Your character wouldn't do that" and expecting me to go along with it is going to require a long talk about exactly what is going on if there's any chance of this game continuing.  It boggles my mind a bit that this goes on, but it takes all kinds.

Quote from: MaddmanEither one for me.  A GM telling me "Your character wouldn't do that" and expecting me to go along with it is going to require a long talk about exactly what is going on if there's any chance of this game continuing.  It boggles my mind a bit that this goes on, but it takes all kinds.

So in this Example:
http://www.nutkinland.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12715&postcount=73

You would view a GM refusing Joe's plans as "Very Little".

If not, and given that the above example was at creator creations, does your answer change if his planned actions came to light later?

Quote from: gleichmanSo in this Example:
http://www.nutkinland.com/forums/showpost.php?p=12715&postcount=73

You would view a GM refusing Joe's plans as "Very Little".

If not, and given that the above example was at creator creations, does your answer change if his planned actions came to light later?

No, not what I'm talking about.  I think players should have Authority, but they need to be on board with the game's concept or it isn't going to work.  They should talk to the GM about that, instead of doing what Joe did - ignore what the GM said and insist he be able to do what he wanted anyway.

And yes the answer changes if the events happen later.  Though I'd say that if Joe planned to say he agreed with the premise of the game and later went 180 degrees from that he's being an asshole.

Player input in any game should not be allowed to drive the whole game off a cliff, as Joe's concept would seem to do.  I guess it's an implied statment in all of these that everyone playing has agreed to the premise of the game.

Quote from: MaddmanAnd yes the answer changes if the events happen later.  Though I'd say that if Joe planned to say he agreed with the premise of the game and later went 180 degrees from that he's being an asshole.

Let's say that the exchange with Joe ended with the character's powers defined, and that the GM ok the age exception thinking that it would be something interesting to play off of.

A few games latter Joe starts enacting his other plans. If objected to, Joe points out that the character write-up was ok'd and the GM never indicated that he couldn't take the actions he's now taking.

A GM refusing Joe at this point counts as "Very Little"?

gleichman - In your example, the problem player should be told they can't make a disruptive character.  That's not a shared world anymore - that's dominance and derailing by one player imposing his own game goals on everyone else.  If this is the only kind of character he wants to make, it's probably not the right game for him.

If the character's personality shifts over time, that's more appropriate.  Still, if he has these goals in mind from the get-go, again I'd say this probably isn't the right game for him.  The GM shouldn't force his character to do anything, but I'm willing to bet the game will sort itself out.  (After all, the other PCs can decide if they want to let that PC in the group.)

If it's not a good fit, or if he's looking to play a completely different game from everyone else, he should be asked to leave.

This is hardly heavy-handed.  To me, it seems like common sense.

-O

edit/note - I got stuck on an escalation so this was made before Maddman's latest post.

Quote from: obrynIf the character's personality shifts over time, that's more appropriate.   Still, if he has these goals in mind from the get-go, again I'd say this probably isn't the right game for him.  The GM shouldn't force his character to do anything, but I'm willing to bet the game will sort itself out.  (After all, the other PCs can decide if they want to let that PC in the group.)

So what you're saying above is, that unless you knew the plans existed the start (in which case you'd tell him to find another group before the problem came up), you would allow the player to carry out his plans as best he could.

As for the other players containing him, they certainly could derail his statement that they would forgive him- but he may will manage some if not all of his other goals (assuming they were possible and he was a skilled if apparently somewhat amoral player).

Quote from: obrynThis is hardly heavy-handed. To me, it seems like common sense.

It would seem common sense to me as well. But I'm trying to figure out how to mark the pool and so I'm trying to find the bounds of "very little".

Quote from: gleichmanSo what you're saying above is, that unless you knew the plans existed the start (in which case you'd tell him to find another group before the problem came up), you would allow the player to carry out his plans as best he could.

As for the other players containing him, they certainly could derail his statement that they would forgive him- but he may will manage some if not all of his other goals (assuming they were possible and he was a skilled if apparently somewhat amoral player).

I'd say again he's playing in the wrong game.

It still wouldn't be okay to try and twist the game to his whims, but once he'd tricked the GM into letting him in, the GM can roll with the punches and handle it in-game at least for a bit.  If that's just obnoxious, or if it's clear he's trying to derail an existing consensus (rather than playing along or gently adapting it), he should be asked to leave.

Allowing player direction isn't the same as allowing everything.  The GM is still the boss and calls the shots, and part of that shot-calling is setting the milieu.  In your example, the player went in knowing the kind of game the GM would run and the kind of game the other players wanted to play, and planned from the start to shit all over it.  Just like fatbeard catpissman, this guy should be asked to leave.

-O

Quote from: obrynJust like fatbeard catpissman, this guy should be asked to leave.

Thus you'd consider removing the player (and I assume preventing his actions that caused his removal) to fall within the 'standard' part of the poll.

As would I. Few groups have no ability to enforce the social contract (to use a r.f.g.a) on players.

But it's Maddman's poll, so I'd like to know how he views it.

Quote from: gleichmanThus you'd consider removing the player (and I assume preventing his actions that caused his removal) to fall within the 'standard' part of the poll.

As would I. Few groups have no ability to enforce the social contract (to use a r.f.g.a) on players.

But it's Maddman's poll, so I'd like to know how he views it.

To be honest, this isn't really what I'm talking about.  By Authority I mean who is in charge of what in the game.  This is assuming that the social contract is just dandy, everyone has bought into the premise, and there's no dysfunction going on.  Happy game, who is in charge of what?

Ejecting a player who is causing problems is likely the call of the GM, the group as a whole, or the people who host the game.  That all depends on the group and IMO is a completely different issue.

Quote from: gleichmanThus you'd consider removing the player (and I assume preventing his actions that caused his removal) to fall within the 'standard' part of the poll.

As would I. Few groups have no ability to enforce the social contract (to use a r.f.g.a) on players.

But it's Maddman's poll, so I'd like to know how he views it.

Heck, I'd put the ability to remove problem players as part of every step of the poll, up to and including DM-less (which, btw, has zero appeal to me as a player.)  Even in DM-less play, a group still needs a consensus.  Lord, it sounds like I'm talking heavy-handed theory here when I don't know theory from a hole in the ground.  It comes down to, "don't let one player ruin everyone else's fun."

You're right, though - it's Maddman's poll so I'll stop answering for him.

-O

I answered "limited", but really it depends on the game I'm playing.

In my current M&M game, I encourage that kind of "I rip the lamp-post out of the ground and swing it at him!" thing, even if I, as GM, never described a lamp-post in that spot.  (Are they on the street, or in the park? Sure there happens to be a lamp-post in reach!)

In my D&D games, where I go more gritty and rough and love the "tactical" part of the game (or what I like to call "role-player tactics") the influence is much much more limited - and the place the players have influence is in their creation of their backgrounds and development of their character, which I then use to build the skeleton of the plot around.

In brief, shared world accomplishes two things over standard:

encourages players to be engaged with the setting.

less work for gm.

the difference between shared world vs. limited to depends mostly on how strong of a concept the gm has.  If they have a well defined plot or it a short campaign with a direction, shared world keeps it a bit more on track.

Quote from: NicephorusIn brief, shared world accomplishes two things over standard:

encourages players to be engaged with the setting.

less work for gm.

For some people this is true. It is not true for all people.

Quote from: gleichmanFor some people this is true. It is not true for all people.

It's true for me, but then again I'm kind of a details-on-the-spot GM.  I like having a framework, then I make specifics either when I think it may come up in-game soon, or when a player makes it relevant.

-O