Quote from: BalbinusI disagree, the important thing is for all participants to have the basic minimal social skills needed to function in society and which will enable them to reasonably talk through stuff if it becomes a problem.

No more, no less.

All too much theory is about solving issues that people with ordinary social skills can talk through in under a minute.

I'm going back to this post because I got a bit derailed on it. The point I was trying to make is that it's never a straightforward, zero-sum thing.

Really, you're agreeing with me. It doesn't matter whether the group talks it out once or every time, or whether the rules say it. Somehow, the GM tasks get performed.

Quote from: SettembriniPhantom Discussion.

:blahblah: :rotfl:

Quote from: Levi Kornelsen"By giving the players the capacity to do additional things, one necessarily removes the capability to do things from the GM."

Opinions, people.  Is this generally true or false?  When is it true, when false?

Throw down some actual cases of when it is true, and when it isn't, if you'd be so kind, so we've got grist for the mill.

While I can understand a desire to avoid reducing this sort of discussion to a bunch of definitions (the death of many a theory thread), I think your use of the word "things" doesn't give much of a starting point.

3rd Edition D&D has opened a veritable Pandora's Box of "things" that players can do, but I don't think it intrudes much on traditional DM fiat.

Are you talking about "narrative credibility" or whatever we theory wonks are calling it these days, or are you talking about any layer of rules that opens up in-game options for characters?

Quote from: Divine HammerAre you talking about "narrative credibility" or whatever we theory wonks are calling it these days, or are you talking about any layer of rules that opens up in-game options for characters?

I mean players doing things at the table, like narrating stuff or being able to 'bluff' the GM or being expressly permitted to shout down lame-ass shit, or...

Like that.

The comment about the drift towards the Gonzo is a good one.

On one hand you have each player wanting their input on the game world maximized.  On the other hand you have suspension of disbelief.

"Suspension of disbelief refers primarily to the willingness of a reader or viewer to accept the premises of a work of fiction, even if they are fantastic or impossible. It also refers to the willingness of the audience to overlook the limitations of a medium, so that these do not interfere with the illusion. However, suspension of disbelief is a do ut des: the audience agrees to provisionally suspend their judgment in exchange for the promise of entertainment. Inconsistencies or plot holes that violate the initial premises, established canon, or common sense, are often viewed as breaking this agreement."

There is a lot more drift towards breaking suspension of disbelief when more people are taking on the GM's role in the game -- and especially when they are the presenting conflicting ideas.

Even if the group can "shoot down" some of these Gonzo ideas -- the damage has already been done: the suspension of disbelief has been broken.

If you have a group of really talented storytellers, this might not happen as often, but I believe that on average, you have more inconsistencies with a group approach to GMing than you do with a single person.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI mean players doing things at the table, like narrating stuff or being able to 'bluff' the GM or being expressly permitted to shout down lame-ass shit, or...

Like that.

Copy that.

Really, it all sounds like it should be filed under "social contract" anyway.  If the folks at the table can't agree on what they want (to a point where there are debates about "lame-ass shit"), there's likely to be some walking out, I should think.

It seems to me that a lot of games aiming at "GM disempowerment" (I'm not really happy with this term, but it's in the title and all...) just shift the focus of the game away from the debate.  The GM can "just say yes" when there are no real consequences to the game.  "Wanna be a super-ninja badass?  Okay, but the game is really about your emotional response to killing."  

That's my impression, anyway.

The word "necessarily" is an obstacle to discussion here. Let me simplify.

Quote"When does giving the players the capacity to do additional things remove the GM's capability to do things?"

I also suspect there's an implication that the things the GM might or might not be capable of doing are worthwhile things. E.g. if giving the players the ability to narrate stuff takes away the GM's ability to railroad, who cares?

One also must beware of reverse. E.g., I can say that giving players the capacity to narrate impedes the GM's ability to maintain consistency. Arguing that the GM won't need to maintain consistency because the players will do so is special pleading.

Quote from: Elliot WilenLet me simplify.

Better.

Quote from: Divine HammerIt seems to me that a lot of games aiming at "GM disempowerment" (I'm not really happy with this term, but it's in the title and all...) just shift the focus of the game away from the debate.  The GM can "just say yes" when there are no real consequences to the game.  "Wanna be a super-ninja badass?  Okay, but the game is really about your emotional response to killing."

I'll use BW here because I know it best of the crowd that I guess would fall into somewhere in the GM Dismemberment catagory.

- Approval of a character is one of the very few places where the GM is explicitly changed and encouraged to turn back a character for reworking if it looks like it isn't going to fit....and the rest of the players are encouraged to razz him if he fails in this duty. Full text of the proscribed chant is given right in the book, tongue-in-cheek.

- What the game is about is right there as part of the character sheet. As well defining what the game is about is done as part of creating the character. Basically you create the characters and the senario as one.  Sort of like that 0 level thread going right now, only it would be the actual players/GM involved instead of a pack of internet wags.

- No game worth playing IMO is about being a super-ninja badass. It is about trying to be a super-ninja badass and the consiquences of the attempt.  Be it getting your knuckles beat up by some guys face, or that you shed a tear everytime you reach into someone's chest cavity and rip their heart out.  Of course me I'm more about the former, not so much about the later. But that is part and parcel of the agreement around the table up front, what the mix is going to be.

It's my experience that a player can, in fact, pretty much veto things in traditional games--and that a group can in many cases overturn a GM veto. The GM is charged with running "the world" (including NPCs) in most games. That's a lot of 'power'--but if the police always show up at the right moment to foil the PCs and it's clearly bogus, the GM will get called on it just like anyone else (in some groups playing OOC knowledge is frowned on--and just like a player can be called on it, so can a GM, IME).

I think that Elliot has a good point: sometimes expanding the player role might limit the GM role ... but even in a game like Dogs, I think this is less relevant than it would seem.

If you sat down to play GURPS DitV and the GM had the King of Life come down and judge the players, I think there'd likely be a revolt at the table. Even if DitV didn't formally exist, I think it still might well happen in a lot of cases.

In DitV there are limits on what the GM can do--but those are, IMO, most limits that would apply to anyone trying to get some player-centric play out of a traditional game (not crushing the PCs with GM-NPCs, not intervening with a solution to the situation the players haven't come up with, not playing "hunt the clue" all night long when no one's into it, etc.)

-Marco

It all depends on whether these "things" are a privilege the players have, or a "right".  

If they're a right, it presumes that the GM is forbidden from interfering in that; in that case, it equivalently reduces the power of the GM.  If not, it doesn't.

So there doesn't have to be a conflict. There's all kinds of privileges that players have, that they're able to do, because the GM permits it.  The real question is that of where the buck stops.

RPGPundit

Quote from: StuartEven if the group can "shoot down" some of these Gonzo ideas -- the damage has already been done: the suspension of disbelief has been broken.

This is critical, I hadn't thought about it but it's right.

By the time you've challenged and discussed the point the atmosphere for me is ruined.

It's the same issue for me with conflict resolution systems, the discussion of the stakes for me just intereferes too much with mood, veto does the same.  The benefit isn't sufficient to me to justify that downside.