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

Again, the nature of this changes substantially when it goes from being optional to being mandatory.  Role-playing games are a hobby that I think most people play for fun.  Not a boot camp that they attend to build character.

Quote from: John MorrowAgain, the nature of this changes substantially when it goes from being optional to being mandatory.  Role-playing games are a hobby that I think most people play for fun.  Not a boot camp that they attend to build character.

How can anything be mandatory? If you don't like the rules, play a different game!

As for a "boot camp to build character," I think we both know that's an extreme exaggeration. I'm talking about mechanical rewards for creatively contributing to help pull players out of their shells/habits. Some players would like to contribute more but aren't sure what's ok/how to, and certain systems give them guidance on how to do this and the GMs guidance on how to respond.

Different games for different goals! If things are going great, keep on keeping on. If there are a few players that feel constricted, try something with player input mechanics. Yay, variety!!!

Quote from: somegamerHow can anything be mandatory? If you don't like the rules, play a different game!

As for a "boot camp to build character," I think we both know that's an extreme exaggeration. I'm talking about mechanical rewards for creatively contributing to help pull players out of their shells/habits. Some players would like to contribute more but aren't sure what's ok/how to, and certain systems give them guidance on how to do this and the GMs guidance on how to respond.

Different games for different goals! If things are going great, keep on keeping on. If there are a few players that feel constricted, try something with player input mechanics. Yay, variety!!!

I'm sick of posters like you.  Fuck you and your reasoned, calm-headed and logical answers.

I much prefer hateful rhetoric and ridiculous overstatement like so many others on this thread!  It's much more awesome to look stupid by exaggerating the established facts or stating deliberate mistruths!

I can't wait until they start building death-camps for you damn story-gamers so that we traditional-game folk can achieve narrative purity.

(and, yes folks, I'm mocking all of us here.  I'm just getting tired of seeing all the demonizing on both sides of the fence.)

Quote from: somegamerDifferent games for different goals!

Different games same goal but different ways to get there!

Quote from: somegamerHow can anything be mandatory? If you don't like the rules, play a different game!

Role-playing is a group activity, unless you are one of those lonely people who can't find a group and sits at home reading game books and dreaming of playing (I assume that you aren't, but plenty of people who talk about role-playing online aren't actually doing it).  That means that a person doesn't always have the sole decision of which system to play or their alternative is to not play.

Quote from: somegamerAs for a "boot camp to build character," I think we both know that's an extreme exaggeration.

Exaggeration?  Sure.  Extreme?  Not really.  Have you read the character generation example in Burning Empires?  How about Ron's "Brain Damage" essay?  And since I've discussed role-playing with people online (mid-1980s), there has been no shortage of people touting things designed to improve players starting with disadvantages in traditional games designed to force people to create characters with flaws and plot hooks.

Quote from: somegamerI'm talking about mechanical rewards for creatively contributing to help pull players out of their shells/habits.

And what makes you think that they need to be or want to be pulled out of their shells/habits?  Once you start talking about pulling, pushing, or forcing, it stops being voluntary.  You're in the army now!

Quote from: somegamerSome players would like to contribute more but aren't sure what's ok/how to, and certain systems give them guidance on how to do this and the GMs guidance on how to respond.

Great.  Then don't make the mechanics mandatory.  Make them voluntary.  I voluntarily give my characters disadvantages all the time because they fit the character.  But I don't enjoy having to pick a certain number of character flaws or plot hooks from a list because the system demands it or gives me an important cookie (e.g., character points) that I won't get if I don't.  If people want to do it, why does it need a reward mechanism?  

In fact, that's one of the things I find most baffling about Forge game design -- the obsession over reward mechanics.  I want to play interesting characters.  I want to role-play them and have fun.  I don't need a reward mechanism to make me do things I want to do.  It's like being paid to breath or eat my favorite food.

Quote from: somegamerDifferent games for different goals! If things are going great, keep on keeping on. If there are a few players that feel constricted, try something with player input mechanics. Yay, variety!!!

Sure.  But once the system requires that everyone do something or not do something, you can't have that variety between different players in the same game.  And that's the problem with "coherent" games that only support only a single style of play or agenda or games that want to push, pull, or force players to play a certain way to improve them.  Everyone has to play one way or not play at all.

Quote from: somegamerI'm talking about mechanical rewards for creatively contributing to help pull players out of their shells/habits.

Again with the condescending implication that players in traditional groups need help, that players who are content to control only the actions of their PCs are hiding in shells, or stuck in a rut.

Why is it so hard to understand that many, many intelligent, creative players do not want to control anything more than the immediate actions of their PCs - not out of laziness, or lack of confidence, or submission, but because that's genuinely the way they have the most fun gaming.

Quote from: WarthurReally?

I've not seen any "Story games" that go that far; the closest I've seen to it is Burning Empires, where the players and the GM collaboratively come up with the stats for the planet the PCs will be defending from the worm invasion (and it should be noted that those stats exist within some very well-defined boundaries) - and I wouldn't call Burning Empires a Story Game.

I would. Its in Conspiracy of Shadows too. Many other storygames I've seen pretty much make it implicit that the player gets to make his character whatever he wants, and the GM must incorporate that into the campaign.


RPGPundit

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.

The term "alpha male" is a reference to the wolf pack, where indeed the head of the pack is a male.
It doesn't mean that the RPG-group's "alpha male" need be a male. That statement was in no way meant to be exclusive of the idea of women GMs, which can be perfectly good GMs as long as they're up to the task of being the Alpha.

I do believe that GMs are above players in the chain of command. If that makes it a hierarchy, so be it. Though its a very particular type of hierarchy; there should be certain things the GM is not allowed to do with regards to the players, and a great deal of responsibilities he must accept and act upon in a correct way.

The tyrannical GM who doesn't give a fuck about his players and runs the game as his own little novel is indeed a crappy GM; its just that neutering the GM role is not the solution to this problem.

My own players have on more than one occasion mocked me when I've consulted them about making a choice regarding something in the game or for the group, saying "hey mr.tough-guy, you talk big on your blog about being the Alpha Male, just step the fuck up and make the choice yourself!".  I take that as a well-meaning sign of trust on their part; but the fact is that the "Alpha GM", being a good leader, is not one who is an authoritarian that doesn't consult his players, or listen to their opinions about an issue before making his decision. Its just that he should be the one who has the final word on most aspects of the game and the group.

RPGPundit

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."

Just to let you know, FtA! is a complete one-book game that doesn't require anything else to be played. The upcoming FtA!GN! sourcebook will have a lot of cool additional materials, but NOTHING in it will be essential to the game's playability.

I hope you check it out!

Oh, and welcome to theRPGsite.

RPGPundit

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

I agree. And, while we're at it, let's not forget its also been largely given a bad name due to the heavy-handed PCs-as-powerless-cheerleaders methods encouraged by the "story-based" games like White Wolf's Storyteller games and others.

RPGPundit

Quote from: jgants1. The Casual Player

2. The Semi-Casual Player

3. The Hardcore Twinky Player

By neglecting the fourth type of player you're only validating your argument with this list. I'm not saying this in a prickish sort of way. So don't go on the defense. Then again, maybe you just never met the fourth type.

So after editing number 3, I add:

4. The Real hardcore Player:
The RHCP owns dozens of roleplaying books, bucketloads of dice, and probably has GM'd at least a few times. He knows the rules inside and out through time spent playing and trying to create characters that challenge him or herself within the rulesset... ruleset... however you spell it. They're more concerned with roleplaying and a fun combat or two than grinding through hordes of monsters for "teh phat lewts". They wrote character backgrounds so that the GM has something to work into his world and they'll willingly read up on any world information the Gm wants them to. They tend to get along fine with 1 and 2, but 3 makes them want to commit suicide via ramming d20s through their eye sockets and into their brains.

:haw:

-=Grim=-

Quote from: RPGPunditI agree. And, while we're at it, let's not forget its also been largely given a bad name due to the heavy-handed PCs-as-powerless-cheerleaders methods encouraged by the "story-based" games like White Wolf's Storyteller games and others.

RPGPundit

To clarify, how so? Basically, I'm asking what these methods encouraged by WW are. I haven't seen them in the 13 years I've been playing the WW games, but I admit that sometimes I live in a bubble where I ignore the point of a game and go my own route. So I might have missed it. I mean shit, I hear these nightmare stories about Rein[dot]Hagen and his ideas of what the ST system was supposed to be and I'm completely surprised. So I'm not being coy- it's an honest question.

-=Grim=-

Quote from: RPGPunditI would. Its in Conspiracy of Shadows too. Many other storygames I've seen pretty much make it implicit that the player gets to make his character whatever he wants, and the GM must incorporate that into the campaign.

OK, I agree that that extent of player empowerment is unhealthy; I think GMs shouldn't be obliged to accept any conceivable character into their campaigns. ("Hi, my character is Disrupty Disrupterson, and he's a 10th level PC Slayer.")

In fact, when you think about it's a very one-sided kind of player empowerment, because it makes the player is absolutely sovereign over his choice of his own character, but completely unable to make any comment on the other players' characters. I think players also need to be able to say "I'm sorry, Bob, but I'm really not seeing how Disrupty Disrupterson fits into the party - do you think we could sort that out before game start?", just as much as the GM needs to be able to say that if he/she sees a problem - after all, if a totally broken PC is accepted into the game it's fun-spoiling for the other players as well as the GM.

Quote from: RPGPunditThe term "alpha male" is a reference to the wolf pack, where indeed the head of the pack is a male.
It doesn't mean that the RPG-group's "alpha male" need be a male. That statement was in no way meant to be exclusive of the idea of women GMs, which can be perfectly good GMs as long as they're up to the task of being the Alpha.

I prefer the Viking Hat.

"* I * am the GM!  * I * wear the Viking Hat!"

For myself, I dislike player "empowerment," but not on grounds of "power." No Viking Hats at my table, whether worn by one or all participants, kthx. In that sense only, gaming is like a relationship: You feel you need to distribute power by codifying rules? You're fucked, it's over already, get out of there.

Instead, I dislike the crudity of social relations and the predictability that's produced by the ham-fisted means of "power" distribution.

I write "ailing grandma" on my character sheet, thus announcing I "want" grandma to come up in the game at some point.

Result:

a) Grandma will come up in the game at some point. Predictable. BORING.

b) It is expected that I feel pleased and engaged when Grandma comes up in the game at some point. After all, had I not requested just that? Why the bored look on the face of this ingrate? Clockwork stimuli-response model of fun. CRUDE.