Quote from: James J SkachOr even go so far as to claim that GM fiat is destroying the hobby.

:raise:

I find that idea deeply silly.

Quote from: James J SkachOr even go so far as to claim that GM fiat is destroying the hobby.

Whereas I believe that eliminating GM fiat is destroying the hobby - whether its the D20 method of codifying every last little situation, or the storygames model of eliminating the GM's authority.

Quote from: jgantsthe storygames model of eliminating the GM's authority.

Reduction of GM authority isn't universal to story-games.  I'm not at all certain that it's even central in any real way.

Just to be clear:

I'm not saying "Story Building Game" = GM Fiat Destruction.

I was imply amplifying Haffrung's comment with how far the idea can be taken. IIRC, Mr. Crane is not the sole holder of this idea; but I could be mistaken on that.

And I agree, Levi - it's a deeply silly idea, IMHO.

Quote from: James J SkachOr even go so far as to claim that GM fiat is destroying the hobby.

Right here. On the RPGSite. In response to a direct question. For which I have aloways given him credit (and for admitting he has no data to back it up, only gut instinct).

One assumes, given the hobby and the phenomenon share a birthday, that it's doing so at a rather reluctant pace.

Quote from: James J SkachIIRC, Mr. Crane is not the sole holder of this idea; but I could be mistaken on that.

Oh, I'm pretty sure that a fair few people share the idea.  Many of the ones I know of, though, have happily moved on to simply dispensing with the GM altogether - and I'm okay with that, if it's done well.

Quote from: HaffrungNo doubt. But many of the advocates of shared authoring, such as Luke Crane, act as though they're leading a liberation of oppressed players. They call traditional players 'submissive', or presume that GMs in traditional games are selfish egomaniacs who jealously hoard their authority. They just can't seem to grasp that lots of people prefer the traditional GM-Player model because they enjoy it, not because of dysfunctional power dynamics.

This is really interesting because Burning Wheel is a GMed game with a fairly powerful GM in-game. The situation-building is pretty collaborative, but I think it's pretty fair for a group to figure out together what kind of game they want to play. I have no explanation for this apparent discrepancy between his words and his desgins.

As for strong GMs destroying the hobby, that sounds pretty silly to me. I do think that story games are an opportunity for growth in the hobby, attracting people with different focuses.

I, personally, find story games less intimidating than games with dozens of sourcebooks that I need to be familiar with to play "correctly." I also, once again this is just me, find the hierarchical structure of a single strong GM and players who are unable to come up with character names rather distasteful. From the outside, it seems as if they are cowed and afraid to contribute, because that's the only reason *I* would be so passive. But, intellectually, if not emotionally, I understand that those players want something else from the hobby than I do. Perhaps some of the less GM-supportive comments you've heard come from the "everyone is like me" fallacy.

I don't have anything against GMs as a pace-setting, tone-setting, NPC-playing, plot-supplying referee. However, in one of the rpgpundit's recent blog posts he stated that "a good GM is a good alpha male." I think this really turned me off personally, as a woman. I resented the implication that 1. GMs are male and 2. GMs are "above" the players in a hierarchy. Once again, I take a deep breath and accept that not everyone shares my suspicion of one person in a group putting themselves over the others. I prefer a game where everyone contributes ideas, but it's okay to be different.

These are just my feelings, presented so that you may have a better idea where these anti-GM sentiments you perceive may be coming from.

Quote from: Levi KornelsenOh, I'm pretty sure that a fair few people share the idea.  Many of the ones I know of, though, have happily moved on to simply dispensing with the GM altogether - and I'm okay with that, if it's done well.

I have no problem with them moving on and doing so - hell I don't care if they do it poorly.  That's their business.

I just don't think that their personal revelation requires sweeping indictments in the process.

Quote from: James J SkachI just don't think that their personal revelation requires sweeping indictments in the process.

'Course not.

I could make some lamely humourous statement about this being the internet and all, but honestly?   Indictments aren't required or even useful.  

I'm pretty cool with the enthused sweeping statement now and again, as just a sign of emotional intensity (I've totally said "This new bubblegum is great!  Those old ones suck so bad!" and not meant much of anything by it), but when it takes on the form of a habit, it's a sucky habit.

I know this with the firmness of someone who has indulged all-too-often in said habit.

Quote from: somegamerThis is really interesting because Burning Wheel is a GMed game with a fairly powerful GM in-game. The situation-building is pretty collaborative, but I think it's pretty fair for a group to figure out together what kind of game they want to play. I have no explanation for this apparent discrepancy between his words and his desgins.

Because being a powerful force in-game is not the same as GM Fiat. Nothing in Mr. Crane's belief about his own GMing history and his views on GM Fiat to prevents him from designing a game that includes a powerful in-game GM.

Quote from: somegamerAs for strong GMs destroying the hobby, that sounds pretty silly to me. I do think that story games are an opportunity for growth in the hobby, attracting people with different focuses.

Depends on how you define the hobby.  In the meta-sense?  Sure - gamers.  In the Role-Playing Games hobby - I'm becoming more convinced there's a distinction worth the difference between them.  But that's just my personal belief.

Quote from: somegamerI, personally, find story games less intimidating than games with dozens of sourcebooks that I need to be familiar with to play "correctly."

Talk about misconceptions! There are plenty of non "Story Building Games" that don't require dozens of source books required to play "correctly."

Quote from: somegamerI also, once again this is just me, find the hierarchical structure of a single strong GM and players who are unable to come up with character names rather distasteful. From the outside, it seems as if they are cowed and afraid to contribute, because that's the only reason *I* would be so passive. But, intellectually, if not emotionally, I understand that those players want something else from the hobby than I do. Perhaps some of the less GM-supportive comments you've heard come from the "everyone is like me" fallacy.

See, these are the kinds of statements that get people riled up. I mean, you've done an admirable job of trying to point out this is how you would feel, as opposed to a general statement - so that's great. But, damn thats' close to saying people who play with the "traditional" GM model are cowed and afraid to contribute.

And it goes all the way back to the first post you made, which included:

Quote from: somegamerSooo... why don't you keep playing the same way you always have with them and let people with players more interested in creatively contributing play games they think they'll have fun with?

Given the two together, it sure looks like you think people who are players in non 'Story Building Games' either don't contribute creatively, don't want to creatively contribute, are afraid to do so, or some combination thereof. And to top it all off, you find their style of play "distasteful."

Quote from: somegamerI don't have anything against GMs as a pace-setting, tone-setting, NPC-playing, plot-supplying referee. However, in one of the rpgpundit's recent blog posts he stated that "a good GM is a good alpha male." I think this really turned me off personally, as a woman. I resented the implication that 1. GMs are male and 2. GMs are "above" the players in a hierarchy. Once again, I take a deep breath and accept that not everyone shares my suspicion of one person in a group putting themselves over the others. I prefer a game where everyone contributes ideas, but it's okay to be different.

These are just my feelings, presented so that you may have a better idea where these anti-GM sentiments you perceive may be coming from.

Yeah, first, ignore Pundit when he rants.  You'll live a longer, happier, healthier, stress-free life.

Second, I'd guess many people never even think of it as "one person putting themselves over another."

Third, there's that assumption again – that if the "traditional" GM model is in play, not everyone is contributing ideas. Perhaps you should rethink/rephrase this with the understanding that they contribute creatively, just in ways different from the way you prefer.

Fourth: The more I read (the more you clarify) the more I don't even think your statements are anti-GM.  They seem to have more to do with how you feel about the players.  But that's just me.

Quote from: James J SkachSee, these are the kinds of statements that get people riled up. I mean, you've done an admirable job of trying to point out this is how you would feel, as opposed to a general statement - so that's great. But, damn thats' close to saying people who play with the "traditional" GM model are cowed and afraid to contribute.

I completely understand! But it's hard for me to explain the kneejerk distaste some people feel for the hierarchical mode without, well, describing my own kneejerk distaste. Emotions and assumptions, whether valid or not, fuel statements, and it's hard to understand where the statements are coming from without understanding the emotions and assumptions that fueled them. I deliberately layed myself out there in the cause of honesty.

QuoteThird, there’s that assumption again – that if the “traditional” GM model is in play, not everyone is contributing ideas. Perhaps you should rethink/rephrase this with the understanding that they contribute creatively, just in ways different from the way you prefer.

This is a great point. Could we talk about the difference between the "player empowerment" that seems to be getting a drubbing in this thread versus "contributing creatively?" To me, "player empowerment" means the player can say things like "oh! It'd be awesome if he's my ex-boyfriend!" or "I'd like a scene where I confront him with this information." I also enjoy player empowerment that allows them to narrate the result of their actions, once the dice have determined degree of success. For example, the dice say I'm mostly, defeated by the masked swordsman. I narrate that he kicks my ass, but I get a slash in that partially reveals his face. Another good example of player empowerment is the ability to create a "kicker" that describes what just happened in your PC's life to launch the action. But all of these sound like things the "can't find a name for their characters" players would find overwhelming.

QuoteFourth: The more I read (the more you clarify) the more I don’t even think your statements are anti-GM.  They seem to have more to do with how you feel about the players.  But that’s just me.

You caught me, and that's what I meant when I said many story game designers were ex-GMs sick of doing all the work. I didn't just mean prep work, I also meant the work of making the game fun. Some players have an attitude that they should just show up and be spoon-fed their fun, and I find that idea personally obnoxious. I'm a busy working adult, too, but for those hours I'm playing, I try to be engaged creatively in the game. "Player empowerment," to me, is a nice way of saying "player responsibility to contribute."

Quote from: jgantsWhereas I believe that eliminating GM fiat is destroying the hobby - whether its the D20 method of codifying every last little situation, or the storygames model of eliminating the GM's authority.

Indeed. GM authority is getting it from the other direction, too - gear-heads who trust numbers in books more than they trust people.

Maybe the model of an authoritative, fair-minded referee for roleplaying games couldn't last. Maybe it was an artifact of a particular time and place in gaming culture.

Then again, maybe it has always worked just fine for the great majority of players, but the people who it didn't work for are very, very frustrated and very, very persistent.

Quote from: jgantsWhereas I believe that eliminating GM fiat is destroying the hobby - whether its the D20 method of codifying every last little situation, or the storygames model of eliminating the GM's authority.

Ding!  Winner.

Some people, though, to judge from the vituperation they heap upon GMs, must have had one hell of a combination of utter assmunch GMs and a total lack of self-esteem or backbone.

Quote from: somegamer"Player empowerment," to me, is a nice way of saying "player responsibility to contribute."

That's awesome way of putting it.

I'm always amazed how folks exaggerate the methods to a point that makes them appear polar opposites.  We're talking shades of gray here.  Even among the most "traditional" gamers I know, that are still playing, admit to the merit behind some of the ideas in these games.  I've never met anyone, outside of message board members, that believe these type of games are radically different.  These players are as ambivalent to the differences in these games as they are between the edition differences in D&D.  Different takes to achieve the same goal.