Player Empowerment Vs. GM Disempowerment.

jrients · November 06, 2006, 01:41:27 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.

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'd like to have this post bronzed and mounted somewhere.

Levi Kornelsen · November 06, 2006, 01:41:39 PM

Quote from: BalbinusIn 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.

See, that's cool, because my experience differs in RPGs.

In my experiences, over here, if someone took us even one small step towards gonzo in a shared-stuff RPG, we'd all be scrutinizing it because we all feel notable responsibility for the 'integrity of the game', and we're all in a headspace that lets us look at such stuff sort-of long-run.

Is it possible that your groups tend to either not want such responsibility (and thus don't take it on), or are in a headspace (say, deeply immersed, f'rex) that doesn't let them act on it? Or something else?

Now, I noted "in RPGs", because my play groups do tend towards the same kind of 'gonzo creep' when we play Once Upon A Time. But not in RPGs.

Balbinus · November 06, 2006, 01:47:01 PM

Quote from: Levi KornelsenSee, that's cool, because my experience differs in RPGs.

In my experiences, over here, if someone took us even one small step towards gonzo in a shared-stuff RPG, we'd all be scrutinizing it because we all feel notable responsibility for the 'integrity of the game', and we're all in a headspace that lets us look at such stuff sort-of long-run.

Is it possible that your groups tend to either not want such responsibility (and thus don't take it on), or are in a headspace (say, deeply immersed, f'rex) that doesn't let them act on it? Or something else?

Now, I noted "in RPGs", because my play groups do tend towards the same kind of 'gonzo creep' when we play Once Upon A Time. But not in RPGs.

Although I have played several shared authority games it has been at a con every time. I imagine that's what's driving our different experiences more than anything else.

That said, there are other reasons I don't enjoy them, they're just not germane to this thread. But hey, as I always say in these debates, I don't like mecha either but it's still good there's mecha games for them as wants 'em.

Balbinus · November 06, 2006, 01:48:30 PM

Quote from: blakkieI 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?

Stuff about GMing authority is usually GMing advice, not rules, and I think that is a meaningful distinction although I appreciate not everyone agrees with me.

I think all advice and rules should assume that people are sensible and capable of a degree of interpretation, we're not robots.

On the other hand, it's a matter of degree. If I have to often fudge or houserule a game I shelve it for something more in line with what I want, so I think we're talking small degrees of difference between our views here in practice.

blakkie · November 06, 2006, 01:51:33 PM

Quote from: Levi KornelsenNow, I noted "in RPGs", because my play groups do tend towards the same kind of 'gonzo creep' when we play Once Upon A Time. But not in RPGs.

I think that's the key, you'll see "Gonzo creep" where the players/GM actually want it. One group I play with tends towards really over-the-top stuff and they usually have a blast with it when they really cut open with it.

In that case is Gonzo bad? Or is it good?

Levi Kornelsen · November 06, 2006, 01:54:13 PM

Quote from: BalbinusI mean, how do you guys think people play?

I'm never sure.

I've been seriously shocked a few to many times to make assumptions on that score.

Balbinus · November 06, 2006, 01:54:59 PM

Quote from: blakkieI think that's the key, you'll see "Gonzo creep" where the players/GM actually want it. One group I play with tends towards really over-the-top stuff and they usually have a blast with it when they really cut open with it.

In that case is Gonzo bad? Or is it good?

Well, which players?

When it's happened to me, each individual decision was something a player wanted and nobody else particularly opposed, but the cumulative effect was not one that anyone was that happy with.

So I don't think it's that simple, I mean, obviously gonzo is good if that's what everyone wants.

blakkie · November 06, 2006, 01:55:33 PM

Quote from: BalbinusStuff about GMing authority is usually GMing advice, not rules, and I think that is a meaningful distinction although I appreciate not everyone agrees with me.

Why the hell would I write a game with advise that isn't supported by the the rules (and visa versa)? :confused: The rules are built on assumptions, and usually the same assumptions are built into the GM advise. If they are actually different then you'll have an even bigger mess.

QuoteI think all advice and rules should assume that people are sensible and capable of a degree of interpretation, we're not robots.

Absolutely, which is why I think putting a lot of this responsibility on players is a great idea.

Get everyone at the table working. Get everyone at the table involved. Get everyone at the table going with "pride of ownership" in the game.

Balbinus · November 06, 2006, 01:57:09 PM

Quote from: Levi KornelsenI'm never sure.

I've been seriously shocked a few to many times to make assumptions on that score.

The only assumption I make is that people are emotionally and intellectually adult, and if that turns out to be false I don't play with them.

Or would, it's not often turned out to be false.

flyingmice · November 06, 2006, 01:58:15 PM

deleted.

blakkie · November 06, 2006, 02:02:58 PM

Quote from: BalbinusWhen it's happened to me, each individual decision was something a player wanted and nobody else particularly opposed, but the cumulative effect was not one that anyone was that happy with.

Sounds like they are going in different directions? Because Gonzo isn't just one place. Did they actively talk about what they wanted at any point? Or was it just a case by case horse trading without direction?

Balbinus · November 06, 2006, 02:05:15 PM

Quote from: blakkieSounds like they are going in different directions? Because Gonzo isn't just one place. Did they actively talk about what they wanted at any point? Or was it just a case by case horse trading without direction?

More the latter.

One I recall, someone would say something that at that point did seem cool. Then someone else something else, but they'd add up to a bit of a mess.

On reflection I think it has more to do with shared authorship in a con game, which is I think trickier than in a regular group where people have a better feel for what everyone enjoys.

I also fear I may have rather taken us off topic with an insight no deeper than saying con games can be hard to pull off sometimes...

Settembrini · November 06, 2006, 02:16:27 PM

Phantom Discussion.

joewolz · November 06, 2006, 02:18:42 PM

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."

This statement is true in cases of playing in a group that is not made up of people you know and trust.

This statement is false if the opposite is true.

From what I can tell, and this is where I fundamentally disagree with all theory being applied to actual play, trust is the biggest issue. System does not matter when you're in a group of friends. System does not matter when you're in a group of friends. The skill of the players and GMs around the table (in any proportion, depending on the game) trumps good mechanics every time.

blakkie · November 06, 2006, 02:20:09 PM

Quote from: BalbinusMore the latter.

One I recall, someone would say something that at that point did seem cool. Then someone else something else, but they'd add up to a bit of a mess.

Ya, you still need direction. That's the altered GM role, as concensus builder.

QuoteOn reflection I think it has more to do with shared authorship in a con game, which is I think trickier than in a regular group where people have a better feel for what everyone enjoys.

I also fear I may have rather taken us off topic with an insight no deeper than saying con games can be hard to pull off sometimes...

Sort of, but I think it brings insight back to some requirements for sharing authorship. EDIT: Or insight into the types of dorks you'll occationally run into at cons.