Player Empowerment Vs. GM Disempowerment.

Levi Kornelsen · November 06, 2006, 01:15:37 PM

"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.

jrients · November 06, 2006, 01:19:31 PM

I don't believe it for a second. In the standard model of the GM as all-potent dictator I don't see how one can disempower the GM.

fonkaygarry · November 06, 2006, 01:22:33 PM

That statement is so vague as to be useless as a source of debate.

Given that, it still seems false to me.

Levi Kornelsen · November 06, 2006, 01:26:58 PM

Quote from: jrientsI don't believe it for a second. In the standard model of the GM as all-potent dictator I don't see how one can disempower the GM.

And outside the standard model?

Here's a really clear example:

In Dogs in the Vineyard, the GM isn't expected to concern himself with saying "no" to silly ideas. He says yes or rolls the dice. This is because the whole group is instructed to shoot down silly ideas.

fonkaygarry · November 06, 2006, 01:31:20 PM

Quote from: Levi KornelsenIn Dogs in the Vineyard, the GM isn't expected to concern himself with saying "no" to silly ideas. He says yes or rolls the dice. This is because the whole group is instructed to shoot down silly ideas.

So your answer is "yes" in some games and "no" in others. What is gained by saying this?

Balbinus · November 06, 2006, 01:33:07 PM

Quote from: Levi KornelsenAnd outside the standard model?

Here's a really clear example:

In Dogs in the Vineyard, the GM isn't expected to concern himself with saying "no" to silly ideas. He says yes or rolls the dice. This is because the whole group is instructed to shoot down silly ideas.

In my actual play experience, fairly consistently in several games, wherever players are given the power to narrate outcomes and then a group veto is given the game slowly trends over time towards the gonzo.

Each step to gonzo is kind of irrevocable, a no-magic game ceases being that forever the instant a bit of magic is introduced, and it creeps further.

Now, the actual play experience of others no doubt varies, but in mine every shared authorship game I've played went down a lowest common denominator road and ended up rather wacky.

A single arbiter helps avoid that, and for me both as player and GM is better for that. Others differ, and that's cool, but for me shared authorship reduces my fun as a player.

Levi Kornelsen · November 06, 2006, 01:33:19 PM

Quote from: fonkaygarrySo your answer is "yes" in some games and "no" in others. What is gained by saying this?

I'm looking for more places where it's yes, and where it's no, so I can figure out why other people occasionally feel one way or the other - especially when they feel differently from me.

blakkie · November 06, 2006, 01:33:54 PM

Quote from: Levi KornelsenAnd outside the standard model?

Here's a really clear example:

In Dogs in the Vineyard, the GM isn't expected to concern himself with saying "no" to silly ideas. He says yes or rolls the dice. This is because the whole group is instructed to shoot down silly ideas.

I think that is an example of the GM losing their sole veto over something. It transfers power to players in the form of responsibility. Of course the GM is basically losing something that they nolonger need, which freaks some GMs (and players) out.

EDIT: Of course the GM is still part of the whole table, so they still get to call "bullshit". It is really only a matter of whether or not they unilaterally say "no" or whether they are part of a group that agrees to say "no".

Balbinus · November 06, 2006, 01:35:36 PM

Quote from: Levi KornelsenAnd outside the standard model?

Here's a really clear example:

In Dogs in the Vineyard, the GM isn't expected to concern himself with saying "no" to silly ideas. He says yes or rolls the dice. This is because the whole group is instructed to shoot down silly ideas.

As a member of the group, that means he still has a responsibility to shoot down silly ideas, it's just not solely his responsibility.

In games with traditional GMing responsibility, I have routinely seen players say "come on, that's dumb" both to other players and to me as GM and I haven't seen that be a problem.

So I don't see the division you're drawing here and I'm not persuaded this is a real issue to be honest, not yet anyway.

droog · November 06, 2006, 01:36:18 PM

There are various tasks that need to be performed in a roleplaying game, eg orchestrating conflict, framing scenes etc. These tasks can be split up so that one person is responsible for each: this could all be the same person or not (eg in Trollbabe, only the GM may begin and end scenes). The tasks can also be distributed so that every participant can perform them (eg in Trollbabe, all players including the GM may initiate a conflict within a scene).

The important thing is for all participants to have a clear understanding of who does what and when.

jrients · November 06, 2006, 01:36:46 PM

Quote from: Levi KornelsenAnd outside the standard model?

I feel less than completely qualified to answer that, as my game table is deep in the heart of "I'm the GM so I'm in charge" territory. But I'll take a shot.

QuoteHere's a really clear example:

In Dogs in the Vineyard, the GM isn't expected to concern himself with saying "no" to silly ideas. He says yes or rolls the dice. This is because the whole group is instructed to shoot down silly ideas.

Well, I guess if the GM found something silly but the rest of the group liked it, he could theoretically be held hostage by the rest of the table. Except of course that if I had agreed to run DitV, I'd be agreeing that it was OK to do such a thing. That's kinda like the Emperor allowing the plebians to rule for a day, even if they did pass stupid edicts. What does it matter when the next day the monarch reasserts control and restores order?

I don't really see myself as Emperor nor my players as plebians, BTW.

Balbinus · November 06, 2006, 01:37:36 PM

Quote from: blakkieI think that is an example of the GM losing their sole veto over something. It transfers power to players in the form of responsibility. Of course the GM is basically losing something that they nolonger need, which freaks some GMs (and players) out.

It may be formally a sole veto, according to the rules, but practically it rarely is.

I mean, how do you guys think people play? We all sit there not speaking because the rules don't give us authority to say when someone is being silly?

The game rules are a tool for play, they are not determinative of play. Much theory is flawed because of an overliteral application of rules that common sense should tell one are not generally applied literally.

Balbinus · November 06, 2006, 01:39:00 PM

Quote from: droogThe important thing is for all participants to have a clear understanding of who does what and when.

I 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.

blakkie · November 06, 2006, 01:41:08 PM

Quote from: BalbinusIt may be formally a sole veto, according to the rules, but practically it rarely is.

I mean, how do you guys think people play? We all sit there not speaking because the rules don't give us authority to say when someone is being silly?

The game rules are a tool for play, they are not determinative of play. Much theory is flawed because of an overliteral application of rules that common sense should tell one are not generally applied literally.

I happen to think it is a good idea for the rules to reflect actual healthy functional play. IMO rules that are very commonly ignored, rewritten, or changed represent poor rules. If the rules aren't written in a way that works then WTH am I paying someone for?

droog · November 06, 2006, 01:41:12 PM

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.

And I think that's a basis for the rest.