TheRPGSite

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.

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

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

Nothing is true for all games.  If I add a bunch qualifiers, it's no longer a brief statement.

Quote from: NicephorusNothing is true for all games.  If I add a bunch qualifiers, it's no longer a brief statement.

"For me shared world..." does not turn your brief statement into a novel.

IME, many shared world proponents do not share your (unknown to me until now) belief that "Nothing is true for all games".

Quote from: MaddmanTo 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?

I'm pretty old school (maybe traditional would be a better word) when it comes to who is charge of what. For me the player is in control of his/her character's destiny(yeah I know how it sounds) and the GM is in charge of breathing life into the world the character inhabits (I really know how that sounds).

I'm a little unclear as to what you mean (and yeah you have given a few examples) by who is in charge of what. Hope you understand where I'm coming from, but I am genuinely curious in your style of play...not the systems you use specifically, but rather the whole collabarative thing.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RI'm pretty old school (maybe traditional would be a better word) when it comes to who is charge of what. For me the player is in control of his/her character's destiny(yeah I know how it sounds) and the GM is in charge of breathing life into the world the character inhabits (I really know how that sounds).

I'm a little unclear as to what you mean (and yeah you have given a few examples) by who is in charge of what. Hope you understand where I'm coming from, but I am genuinely curious in your style of play...not the systems you use specifically, but rather the whole collabarative thing.

Regards,
David R

Well, I suppose maybe some examples might not hurt.  Let's say that one PC is a priest in a fantasy world seeking out an ancient artifact.  In the 'Very Little' style, it may be that the GM assigned this role.  More importantly, if the PC started veering off the GM may say 'Your character wouldn't do that, his quest is too important to him'.  I'm not real familiar with this style myself, but I understand some people play this way.

In what I'm calling 'Standard', the player looks through the setting material and picks the god of the sun for his character to follow.  He looks through the setting material to find a homeland and culture.  In play he does what he likes with his character, but the details come from the GM (or pre-bought setting).

In the 'Shared World', instead of looking through the GM's stuff, the player creates the background material related to his character.  Instead of picking a god from a list, he might make up his own.  Same with the homeland or other details.  He would also feel a lot of latitude with making up NPCs and other figures that his character knows or grew up with.

The limited influence spreads the player's authority a bit further.  They have some kind of resource or points where they can influence rolls or introduce plot twists or events.  There could be games with these resources but have 'standard' style of chargen, but it seemed to me to be a good place on the scale of GM---Player authority.

GMless games or those nearly so have a lot more authority than most games, where players can introduce whole scenes or the GM role rotates or what have you.  Again, I'm not very familiar with this style, but there are people who play this way.

As for myself, I used to be Standard, moved to Shared, and am now pretty firmly devoted to limited influence for most genres.  I find the more I trust players to put what they think is cool into the game the better it gets.

For

Quote from: MaddmanIn the 'Shared World', instead of looking through the GM's stuff, the player creates the background material related to his character.  Instead of picking a god from a list, he might make up his own.  Same with the homeland or other details.  He would also feel a lot of latitude with making up NPCs and other figures that his character knows or grew up with.

Right, I think the confusion on my part was with this whole area. Whenever I create a setting, sure player input in wellcomed. But within limits. Sure he/she can create the god he wants to worship and the people he knows providing they fit into the framework of the setting(although i provide all the stats and also further motivatitions of said characters) I'm not to sure about creating homelands and such though. So I think when it comes to this aspect of the shared world concept I'm operate within certain smallish area.

The reason for this is simple. Sometimes the vision of the setting of what I hope to create and what the player perceives does not exactly mesh. I may want to run a Taming of the Shrew kind of game and the player's ideas are straight out of 10 Things I Hate About You -not exactly what I had planned. But having said that if I was running a MacBeth kind of game, and the player tosses in some Throne of Blood ideas...I would be impressed, really impressed:)

QuoteThe limited influence spreads the player's authority a bit further.  They have some kind of resource or points where they can influence rolls or introduce plot twists or events.  There could be games with these resources but have 'standard' style of chargen, but it seemed to me to be a good place on the scale of GM---Player authority

.

Right. Okay I get the influence rolls part, but as far as plot twist or events are concerned, I would rather those things come up because of what the players do in their roles as characters in the game. You know the whole roleplaying aspect of the game

 

QuoteI find the more I trust players to put what they think is cool into the game the better it gets.

Yeah, I think the main difference in our playing styles is that you really dig stuff(rules) that give more overt influence to the players in how the world and adventure is created and run, while I'm a bit old fashioned in the sense that the players influence is felt mainly through the choices their characters make within the game which is, constrained, since I don't dig rules that would allow players to have that kind of overt control over the game.

Thanks for the examples.

Regards,
David R

Quote from: David RYeah, I think the main difference in our playing styles is that you really dig stuff(rules) that give more overt influence to the players in how the world and adventure is created and run, while I'm a bit old fashioned in the sense that the players influence is felt mainly through the choices their characters make within the game which is, constrained, since I don't dig rules that would allow players to have that kind of overt control over the game.

Yeah, it isn't to everyone's taste.  Some people just don't like those kinds of metagame mechanics.  And like I said I wouldn't use them for everything - action, drama, and adventure they work great.  Horror, not so much.  It all depends on the feel I'm going for - Resident Evil the video game wouldn't have action points, while Resident Evil the movie would.

QuoteAuthority - How much do you like in your game?

I'd like a bit more all round than there is at the moment in  My little Old World (http://jmcl63.blogspot.com/2006/03/my-little-old-world-swimming-with_09.html). I'm not really into my stride as a GM yet. And I could do with my players being a bit more proactive themselves. I want leaders and plot-grabbers. All in due course no doubt. ;)
  (http://jmcl63.blogspot.com/2006/03/my-little-old-world-swimming-with_09.html)

I've been leaning in the last few year toward giving my players limited authority over the game world.  Granted, this depends on whom I'm playing with - I know and trust my current group, and might take a more traditional GM stance toward players I don't know as well.

Obviously, a lot of this has to do with projecting our own experiences into the game. I picked the first option before reading the back & forth between Gleichman and Maddman but I'd probably go with the second or third if I had a do-over.

Why my experiences matter? Well, I guess I'm thinking of an incident in character creation during a campaign that never got off the ground, where one player wanted her character to be a woman who's looking for a mysterious knight she'd had an affair with. I explained that it wasn't a medieval world: ergo, no knights. She said that whatever the world, her character thought of the man as "a knight". I was sort of able to accommodate this, but it pointed to a potentially disruptive lack of shared vision.

If you're putting together a campaign, conflicts like this are always a possibility. You can deal with them by having a group of people and negotiating until you've got a shared vision, or you can decide on a vision and then let people decide if they want to buy in, or you can draw from a pool of people who already share a vision.

My favorite is Shared World, followed by Limited Influence then Standard.  I like a world where the PCs can build and create in character, and a player can occasionally build and create ooc too if they have a neat idea.

I do not enjoy the first or last option, one is far too authoritarian and tends to be run by DM Nazis and the other is too chaotic and I don't think the world feels as real or has a vision.

I am curious about who answered GM-less, and to hear more about your experience with that form of playing. In another thread, perhaps. I have very limited experiences with the play form myself.

By basis is shared world. I love it if the players take the work out of my hands by creating big chunks of gameworld on their own when they create their chars.

There is of course the problem of shared vision. This has to be done in group and I like to use mechanics to keep the group coherent (point buy and you get bonus points for links and shared goals with other PC's). That's also one of the reason I like to stick to standart D&D, there's a bunch of assumptions everyone can easily share.

I also love the occasional slip into limited influence, especially when I'm a player. I'm the kind of guy that will whole you with questions like "is there a tree we could knock over to cross the chasm", "Is there a chandalier to swing on" or, my favorite from actual play so far "Is there a lamb over the ghoul's head I could shot down" (yes there was and yes it brought down the ghoul).

However, I don't like this to be done over mechanics. For example a mechanic could make a player feel entitled to enforce a absolute moodbreaker.

I've also found some players feel uncomfortable with anything with more player influence than standart. You ask them for input and they get that "Huh, why the fuck does that guy demand that from me? He's the master. I'm only here to kick back and be entertained." expression. If they are in the minority that's cool, but a complete party of such guys is a pain in the ass to me.

Quote from: gold"Is there a lamb over the ghoul's head I could shot down" (yes there was and yes it brought down the ghoul).

I hope the lamb's sad bleating keep you awake at night. :mad:

QuoteI've also found some players feel uncomfortable with anything with more player influence than standart. You ask them for input and they get that "Huh, why the fuck does that guy demand that from me? He's the master. I'm only here to kick back and be entertained." expression. If they are in the minority that's cool, but a complete party of such guys is a pain in the ass to me.

I think this can also be a case of players not knowing where to start. For my part, at least, I find it very difficult to participate in Shared World if I don't have a very firm grasp on the game's theme and the group's (and GM's) plans.

Often I've been rather passive at the start of a campaign (especially with an unfamiliar game or game world) only to roll into action once a few sessions have passed.

Generally, I think Standard is the best.

For me it's a two fold approach.  Before the actual game starts I prefer both as a player and a GM to have some sort of influence in the game we are playing.  It works well in our group, it gets all the players involved and interested in the game world before the game begins.  Once the game starts then the shared experience is less important because you've already put that work in ahead of time.  However if a player has a cool idea I'll use it.