Be a GAME-MASTER, not a DIRECTOR

[Gorgon Zee]

[I]If they were kids, the GM has the backyard with the box of sand, and the players have the Tonka trucks - they have to share with each other for anything to happen. "You get to play with my sand, and I get to play with your trucks." You know, like we learned to do in kindergarten[/I].

I don't know of any RPG that works this way... The player does not bring a character for the DM. And the DM says you can play in my sandbox, but you must follow my rules.

I think your experience of different systems and styles of gaming may be more limited. I cannot think of any campaign I've been in where I haven't "brought a character for the GM". Even in super-gamist systems like D&D 4E all the GMs I've run with have encouraged players in:

• Defining family members, antagonists, love interests and random bar encounters.
• Creating locations and details within established locations.
• Creating businesses, entertainment groups and the like.
• Adding background lore.

If your GM has never encouraged you to add detail to your world -- specifically if they shoot you down every time you try to introduce a character that fits the game -- I think your experience must be very different from the usual one.

Also, as a slight aside, if the GM says "you must follow my rules" I have one foot ready to exit already. If they say "you must follow our rules", I'm a much happier player. A GM's attitude to the rules should not be the owner and sole dispenser, but should be to referee them in case of dispute.

 

[tetrasodium]

No, it doesn't.

But, you asserting that it does, with no support at all leads me to think that arguing it with you will be metaphorically like banging my head against a wall.
So, I'm not going to bother.

I think he's at least somewhat on the mark with his summary and will go a step further by adding "support" explaining how & reference the "Who “owns” a PC after the player stops using them?" thread from a few months ago to move it from merely hypothetical to demonstrated player beliefs. Your original statement was that players "own" their PCs and the gm everything else pretty much leads there for a lot of folks. Backstory & it's associated cloud of lore/fluff is the point where it breaks down.

Others have noted that the PCs need to interact with the world for a game to take place, but when typically "trad" games like d&d added background & backstory to the PC side of things it was often done in a way that got presented as a unilateral thing to be decided in isolation. With all of that backstory background & associated cloud of (sometimes only) hypothetical or implied NPCs & groups being part of the PC & "owned by the player it can easily result in players feeling like they have veto power over any part of the world or adventure that could impact the cloud they "own".

 

[tetrasodium]

I think your experience of different systems and styles of gaming may be more limited. I cannot think of any campaign I've been in where I haven't "brought a character for the GM". Even in super-gamist systems like D&D 4E all the GMs I've run with have encouraged players in:

• Defining family members, antagonists, love interests and random bar encounters.
• Creating locations and details within established locations.
• Creating businesses, entertainment groups and the like.
• Adding background lore.

If your GM has never encouraged you to add detail to your world -- specifically if they shoot you down every time you try to introduce a character that fits the game -- I think your experience must be very different from the usual one.

Also, as a slight aside, if the GM says "you must follow my rules" I have one foot ready to exit already. If they say "you must follow our rules", I'm a much happier player. A GM's attitude to the rules should not be the owner and sole dispenser, but should be to referee them in case of dispute.

The GM usually wants to find a way to make things work & often does what they can to encourage some or all of the things you note. If a player comes to the table dead set on something specific though that starts to break down because the GM doesn't usually want to start things off by bluntly saying no unless something is especially egregious or problematic. When those those two outlooks of collaboration and "I am here to tell MY story" clash though collaboration is completely discarded by one person in favor of more more more vrs the apathy of looking the other way while accepting that nothing is shared as bloodtide described

 

[dragoner]

The title is reminding me of a depeche mode song. What are we lonely ref's supposed to do?

 

[hawkeyefan]

This just moves the definition of the word 'share' to be 'anything'.


I don't know of any RPG that works this way... The player does not bring a character for the DM. And the DM says you can play in my sandbox, but you must follow my rules...like don't ruin or destroy it.

I don't think it fits at all. The players don't come over to 'play' in the DMs game world like a sandbox. The players don't just sit there and 'play by themselves' and 'do whatever they want'.

I own a game room....built it myself..in my one barn. I own it and everything in it. I do invite people over to use it, like say play pool. It's a stretch and miss wording to say I "share" my game room and pool table. And they bring nothing but themselves. Even if they bring their lucky cue, we don't 'share' it.

It's like I own and maintain a large in ground pool. Some other guy brings over a foam ball we can toss around in the pool and play a game. And you'd say we are "sharing" the game. Sure...I have the massive expensive pool....and the other guy has a $5 foam ball......that is not even close to being equal.

Worse....it is like what often happens in a work place....one person does 99% of the work, while four others each do way less then 1%.....oh, but sure it is a "team effort" as their are five workers "sharing" all the work.

So you insist that this is the way it must be... but people are explaining that it doesn't need to be this way. And your answer is to say "no, no... it has to be this way."

There are people and games who play in a much more collaborative way. Where one person is not responsible for 99% of the game's setting. The players have more say about the world. The GM and/or the rules may also have some say about the player-characters. Not everything is determined ahead of play and set in stone.

These things are all possible. Your insistence that it must be so is simply your choice of how to play. You can play in a different way if you choose to. But that won't happen if you don't understand how this kind of play is possible.

Instead of refusing to believe it, maybe ask how people do it, and listen to the responses. Then it would be like we'd be having a useful conversation.

 

[clearstream]

I understood @thefutilist to be using "system" much as Baker and Edwards do. So it would include procedures/practices (including informal/unwritten ones) for moving from fiction to fiction unmediated by cues.

I'm thinking here of "system" as including just those procedures and practices that can be stated and reiterated. Systematized, essentially. Part of my reasoning is that while one could say that rules/norms govern all our speech acts; to call those that are left vague, applied ad hoc, or that no one can quite articulate, "system", might leave no room for fiction that is not system.

Thus the sort of fiction-to-fiction movement I'm thinking of is when I advance the fiction following no procedure that I can articulate. Charles compliments my hair. Judging his overture to be facile, I say that I look at him with disdain before turning and leaving the room. In some sense, Charles' compliment has moved me to leave the room - fiction-to-fiction. I could say that there were unwritten rules in play - system - but unless I can leave room for fiction that isn't system, it's going to be system-to-system all the way down.

I'm likely conflating fiction with imagination to a degree, in that I'm not treating it as what has been uttered in the past (the kind of fiction in a published book), but the ongoing conversation.

Well, as I've said, I think some of them or at least some bits of them are constructed prior to the play that they seek to engender. And while these might tend to be the weak bits of a ruleset, they're not necessarily going to be hopeless.

(Emphasis mine.) I would put it like this: experiences of play > imagined syntheses and modifications > prospective play (imagined play) > articulated rules. How far a designer can innovate in each step depends on many factors... as much about their context as about them.

Other storytelling games - eg A Penny For My Thoughts.

Penny For My Thoughts is characterised in many places as an RPG, was winner of an "Indie RPG award" award, and has the characteristics you've proposed for RPGs. Microscope could be a better case in point, albeit also characterised in many places including the text itself as an RPG, and a winner of an "RPG of the Year Award".

I'm trying to think what storytelling form aside from RPGing makes its core text an instruction manual?

I don't take Penny For My Thoughts or Microscope to challenge the implied conjecture, because both are plausibly RPGs.

 

[niklinna]

Instead of refusing to believe it, maybe ask how people do it, and listen to the responses. Then it would be like we'd be having a useful conversation.

Now how can you continue making blanket assertions in direct contradiction to what other people say if you listen to what other people say?

 

[bloodtide]

I think your experience of different systems and styles of gaming may be more limited. I cannot think of any campaign I've been in where I haven't "brought a character for the GM". Even in super-gamist systems like D&D 4E all the GMs I've run with have encouraged players in:

• Defining family members, antagonists, love interests and random bar encounters.
• Creating locations and details within established locations.
• Creating businesses, entertainment groups and the like.
• Adding background lore.

I sure encounter more players that refuse to do anything other then make their character.

And I don't really count much when a player scribbles on a napkin 'Bob's Tavern' and then wants to "share credit for making the game".

There are a few good players that make real, decent game content equal to the DMs effort......but that is rare.

Instead of refusing to believe it, maybe ask how people do it, and listen to the responses. Then it would be like we'd be having a useful conversation.

It also helps if you don't run off and say things I did not say. How many times can I type "there are lots of ways the play" and "every game is great for the people that want that specific game"?

Like the example above. The DM makes everything, and the players just say "we ride our bikes north". Ok, so I don't see any "sharing" or the players doing 50% of the world building. Then, the DM with all the power just says "oh look a gorge!". Again, no "sharing by the players". Then the players make a rule check to jump over the gorge. "No sharing". Then the game has a line "oh you make it to the other side, but something bad happens". So the DM...alone with all the power decides what that 'bad thing' is. And in a game without this specific 'bad thing' rule, a DM can still do a bad thing. Though I guess the rule and the players roll gives the DM something to point to and say "it's not me, it's the roll/rule". While most other types of games the DM will just say : "It all me!".

 

[hawkeyefan]

It also helps if you don't run off and say things I did not say. How many times can I type "there are lots of ways the play" and "every game is great for the people that want that specific game"?

Anytime I’ve seen you type something like that, you follow it with some cockamamie conjecture about other styles of play. You don’t ask others for examples, you provide your own flawed example based on a limited understanding of said play style, and then you criticize your own example as not making sense.

For example…

Like the example above. The DM makes everything, and the players just say "we ride our bikes north". Ok, so I don't see any "sharing" or the players doing 50% of the world building. Then, the DM with all the power just says "oh look a gorge!". Again, no "sharing by the players". Then the players make a rule check to jump over the gorge. "No sharing". Then the game has a line "oh you make it to the other side, but something bad happens". So the DM...alone with all the power decides what that 'bad thing' is. And in a game without this specific 'bad thing' rule, a DM can still do a bad thing. Though I guess the rule and the players roll gives the DM something to point to and say "it's not me, it's the roll/rule". While most other types of games the DM will just say : "It all me!".

Whose example of play was that? What is it even meant to portray?

I can offer an actual example from an actual game. It’s a game called Stonetop, and it uses the Powered by the Apocalypse (PbtA) game engine. It’s similar in setting and general tone to D&D, except the setting is more iron age-ish, and the premise of play is more focused. Play revolves around the champions of the town of Stonetop… the PCs… ans their adventures. Everything they do is done for the betterment of Stonetop in some way. They’re not wayward murder hobos… they’re members of the town, with strong connections to it. They may leave town as needed, but they’ll always return.

Now, this game comes with a default setting. It details the region around Stonetop, and the other settlements that are nearby, along with other geographical features and locations. It gives descriptions of a few cultures that can be found in these settlements. It provides details on the creatures that dwell in the region. It suggests some NPCs for the neighboring settlements.

Interestingly, the setting does not provide any NPCs for Stonetop. The expectation is that the group will create the denizens of Stonetop together when they make their PCs. This way, the characters are connected to the town in ways that the players have helped define. The NPCs seem more familiar to the players.

Then, the players answer some questions together as a group that help establish some recent events or concerns. For instance, in my game, the Ranger player decided that he had encountered some large beast in the Great Wood, and it had killed one of his three dogs. So we began play with that as a potential threat to the town.

The Seeker, a hinter of arcane knowledge, had been gifted a mysterious orb by a stranger. She only vaguely recalls the details of this interaction. After returning home with it, her family all became ill and died. Who was this stranger? What is the orb? Did it cause her family’s death? These are questions posed by player decisions.

There were other characters as well, with more starting material. But the point is that as the GM, other than partially reading the setting book, I didn’t do any more work than the players in establishing the beginning situation of play. I offered some ideas here and there, and made some suggestions about NPCs in the town, and that was it.

Everything that followed in our early sessions came from the players’ ideas during character and town creation. I didn’t have to create a ton of material before play. It simply wasn’t necessary. I took what they came up with and I ran with that.

And that’s the way that the game actually functions in play, too. Actions have consequences. Dice rolls can help the GM determine when a new threat or bad situation comes up. And when they get worse, if not dealt with. The GM has to come up with ideas… he needs to determine what threat to introduce, for example, or in what way an existing threat worsens.

But he’s absolutely not sitting down ahead of play and doing 95% of the work. Yes, some games work that way… but that’s a choice.

Feel free to ask any questions you may have about the above.

 

[bloodtide]

Whose example of play was that? What is it even meant to portray?

Up thread.

It’s a game called Stonetop,

Okay.

For instance, in my game, the Ranger player decided that he had encountered some large beast in the Great Wood, and it had killed one of his three dogs. So we began play with that as a potential threat to the town.

Ok, so you have a setting. The player adds a vague story: and sure that is great. But this is again my main point: Even if the player writes a whole paragraph, it is still minimal effort. The player says "a beast" then shrugs and walks away. The DM then has to do all the work. But everyone wants to give the player equal credit, for just about zero work or effort.

And I get that many DMs don't want to do the hard "thinking part", so having the players come up with stuff is a great idea for them. And some DM just love having the players tell them what to do....I'd guess so they can blame the players too if the game is not "fun".

The Seeker, a hinter of arcane knowledge, had been gifted a mysterious orb by a stranger. She only vaguely recalls the details of this interaction. After returning home with it, her family all became ill and died. Who was this stranger? What is the orb? Did it cause her family’s death? These are questions posed by player decisions.

So, again....the player says a couple words, but the DM must do all the work to fill in everything.

There were other characters as well, with more starting material. But the point is that as the GM, other than partially reading the setting book, I didn’t do any more work than the players in establishing the beginning situation of play. I offered some ideas here and there, and made some suggestions about NPCs in the town, and that was it.

Everything that followed in our early sessions came from the players’ ideas during character and town creation. I didn’t have to create a ton of material before play. It simply wasn’t necessary. I took what they came up with and I ran with that.

So if I'm following, you as GM do very little...even nothing. You have the setting in the book, and the players add in their random things...that you flesh out and create.

I guess this is a "player lead" game? It does not seem all that fun for the DM though. The players just say "make this" and then DM bows and says "yes player".

If you do no prep, then this is a pure improv game? You just do the Quantum Creation right in front of where ever the players move their characters?

And that’s the way that the game actually functions in play, too. Actions have consequences. Dice rolls can help the GM determine when a new threat or bad situation comes up. And when they get worse, if not dealt with. The GM has to come up with ideas… he needs to determine what threat to introduce, for example, or in what way an existing threat worsens.

But he’s absolutely not sitting down ahead of play and doing 95% of the work. Yes, some games work that way… but that’s a choice.

Feel free to ask any questions you may have about the above.

This seems to me to be a very casual random game. The players tell you to make stuff up on their whims. You do so. And it's just pure chaos. Player one says the back is over there...player two says the back is over there....so now the town has two banks....or does the back just move depending on the players whims?

No one keeps track of anything? So there is just "something anywhere?"

I'm lost