I've noticed and commented before on one of the topics the Pundit brought up in his most recent video, that progressive game designers have moved what used to be under the scope of GM authority to "table consensus." For example, in the newest Fate Condensed (a game which I personally like and will note here that Fred Hicks has always been helpful when I've chatted with him) explicitly suggests that you restrain crazy aspect stretching by appealing to table consensus.

My experience matches what the Pundit describes (both at game tables and business meetings). Even among nice people, "consensus" just means that 1 or 2 people who are most socially aggressive / extroverted dominate the "consensus," and others politely conform (out of fear or empathy). Those alpha players invariably believe they are considerate of others, but tend to be the least socially aware of others needs.

This differs from a democratic voting situation, where each person gets an equally valid vote AND others do not know who voted for what. Pundit's argument (I think) is that those that promote consensus don't really like democratic mechanisms.

My guess is in many cases a democratic table decision would produce a different result than a "consensus" decision.

Even if consensus did work, the incentives are always wrong. It's in the player's interest IN THE MOMENT to dominate every scene and wildly succeed in the moment. Just like in the moment it's a great idea for me to drive as fast as I want, eat tons of food that is horrible for me, etc. This has nothing to do with antagonistic tables and everything to do with incentives. In the long term (the session or campaign) what players might want in a scene might be disruptive. Wildly succeeding in every scene shortcuts narratives and satisfaction and can make things incoherent, for example.

Just my thoughts.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;1125549This differs from a democratic voting situation, where each person gets an equally valid vote AND others do not know who voted for what. Pundit's argument (I think) is that those that promote consensus don't really like democratic mechanisms.

My guess is in many cases a democratic table decision would produce a different result than a "consensus" decision.

I agree that there is a difference -- but I also feel that conducting a secret vote for aspect stretching in FATE seems like overkill. I would feel strange going to a secret vote among players for a simple ruling like that. There are flaws with consensus, but there are also advantages to being open and having clear discussion.

More broadly than FATE aspect stretching, I think there are problems with both consensus and secret voting. They tend to get a moderate, middle-of-the-road results. In a game, though, it's often more interesting to get curveballs that are not middle-of-the-road. Also, it's possible for one player to always be in the minority, and thus never get their way. It can be better to distribute decisions like turn-taking or random-call, so everybody gets input on different things.

Quote from: PencilBoy99;1125549Even if consensus did work, the incentives are always wrong. It's in the player's interest IN THE MOMENT to dominate every scene and wildly succeed in the moment. Just like in the moment it's a great idea for me to drive as fast as I want, eat tons of food that is horrible for me, etc. This has nothing to do with antagonistic tables and everything to do with incentives. In the long term (the session or campaign) what players might want in a scene might be disruptive. Wildly succeeding in every scene shortcuts narratives and satisfaction and can make things incoherent, for example.

I've seen this argument before, but I think it's overstated. For example, I've seen it argued that if the X-card were allowed, then the players would just X-card anything bad ever happening to their characters. But from my experience of playing in a number of games using it, the players actually never invoked the X-card. The vast majority of players understand that wildly succeeding in every scene is not conducive to a fun game, and would not, in fact, always choose that even if they had the power.

The Viking Hat yet again solves these problems.

Players have the tremendous power to WALK AWAY from the game.

And that's it.

This is why Session Zero / Pre-Campaign Discussion is important. The GM needs to put his cards on the table. The players agree or object. The GM decides which ideas to keep, toss or add. Once the GM defines how the campaign will proceed, that's the END of consensus.

If a player is unhappy after that point, they can eXit out of the game.

And if you're playing FATE, that's your own damn fault.

You're introducing a problem that's handily solved by your opening paragraph: appealing to table consensus rather than GM authority.

Rulings aren't bullying except in the hands of bullies. If your GM is a bully, leave.

For the socially well-adjusted, rulings are just that: a judgement call, by a neutral referee.

...

Engaging with the thrust of the thread:

I think the balance of players is really what consensus is gonna come down to. If you have a "bully" player and no other player speaks up about being fed up with their crap, then yes: you will consistently get the bully bullying their way into cheap victory. There's a deeper problem here: when you put an asshat, ANY asshat, in a position of authority (of ANY variety) you will invariably get bad results.

The problem cannot be solved no matter how elegant your incentive mechanisms are: if you're playing with asshats, eventually the game will become about dealing with them.

You'd think just "common sense" would be enough, but I guess some people don't have it and need an X card. The other reason to use it would be if you're in a con game or something, potentially playing in some game like Call of Cthulu which might have some questionable content, and don't know what to expect from the players and each other. Raising the X card gives you a quick shortcut instead of a big long conversation.

But it's true, that I suspect people would be hesitant to use it out of fear of rocking the boat, and it might just indirectly prove to be a weapon for the dominant personalities who look at nobody raising a card and can ignore common sense because nobody said anything. Then again, if I saw it in actual practice that might be different.

IMO it's important the GM is in charge, but a good GM will often seek player input on stuff before making a decision. I know when I playtested Mini Six RPG I specifically asked players what they thought about various approaches we tried, and went with what they preferred on eg initiative. But it was up to me to make the decision. And of course when it comes to rules issues some players are trustworthy, some definitely aren't!

I think with questionable content, if I think for a moment I have to ask "Is this ok?" I'll just not include it! Some things just aren't predictable, like the player who decided she was traumatised by sight of a bare female midriff in a swords & sorcery 4e D&D game. But generally speaking there are pretty obvious community standards.

GMs should be in total control of their tables and tables need to deal with their problem players as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Quote from: Azraele;1125567The problem cannot be solved no matter how elegant your incentive mechanisms are: if you're playing with asshats, eventually the game will become about dealing with them.

Exactly. Game rules won't control or derail misbehavior by bad players (or bad GMs).

As our grizzled curmudgeon Gronan used to say, "No gaming is better than bad gaming."

I agree that quiet players generally just go along with the "consensus" and I've had more than my fair share of "unhappy players after the fact". It's part of the burden of being a GM.

Some people get it, some people don't - so what?

It's hard to count on adults to behave or think like adults because adults are older children and what we're really talking about is a combination of maturity and social-awareness. Probably a sprinkle of self-esteem and a touch of self-awareness. These attributes are in short supply in modern western society. We are bred to be sheep, rarely taught success principles, social skills, or how to be true to oneself.

Here's the hard truth. You CANNOT inject these things instantly into another human being in a pre-game conversation in hopes to get a true, iron-clad "consensus".

So, as mentioned by other studious and wise forum members above, you need to be true to yourself. You need to be honest. Be sincere in your DESIRE to build consensus but understand that a true consensus is near impossible to come by.

If someone either a) doesn't secretly like the consensus or b) later changes their mind, they can always choose to leave. You made your best effort and that is all that can be reasonably asked of anyone.

Another thing to remember is that many people--I'd even say a majority in some cases--don't have a strong preference on most things.  They don't really care what the game is about, as long as there is a game.  Then you've got another large slice that feel more or less the same way, with one or two exceptions:  "I'm up for any game as long as it isn't horror or run using Fate."  That's not even counting the people that will try almost anything once.  Or the people that have conditional exceptions:  "I'm up for any game but don't want to play D&D 5E this time, because I want to do something different for a change of pace."  

If you've got a lot of those in a group--whether all the time or just at this moment for the game you have in mind--trying to get consensus only annoys them.

I generally choose to play with a group based on the GM.
A GM with strong character and good creative skills will see me through most storms.
In my entire history of playing RPGs the number of 'bad' GMs I've played with has been too tiny to mention compared to the number of asshole players who made outrageous demands, needed codddling, or just plain sucked as human beings. A good GM can generally deal with that, whereas table consensus generally won't, because those people will try to push the GM around.
So I'll take the good old viking hat any day over having to try to 'vote' Bob into being less of a dick.

It is weird. The vast amount of RPG advice and modern RPG development is about constraining / controlling "problem" GM's, but like you even accounting for % distribution I've had infinitely more problem players than GMs.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;1125630GMs should be in total control of their tables and tables need to deal with their problem players as quickly and efficiently as possible.

Yes.

"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled." - Michael Crichton

Identify the Storygames tactics, and crush them.

I'm the Perma GM for my group of Friends and Family so they trust me with my rulings.   Normally its our kids that want to question why I wont allow something, sometimes I give them a short answer and the rest of the group will just tell them, because he's the GM   So I guess you could say at our table the consensus is "because the GM said so"