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. 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.
 

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.