Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="SabreCat" data-source="post: 4714094" data-attributes="member: 76245">Jim, why do you feel it's necessary to characterize GM-less play as a means to fix a &quot;disease&quot; or &quot;problem&quot;? Why can't it be an excellent alternative in its own right?Because while I'm such a huge fan of GM-less play that I'm designing a game in that style, I agree with the above posters who've said you can't fix problem players with a change of narrative authority. Players who get frissons out of wrecking the GM's carefully laid plans aren't going to suddenly become attentive, considerate, and cooperative when you change up the rules for contributing to the fiction.Here's a big thought: even traditional GM-player games with lots of narrative authority in the hands of one guy are collaborative. They're just a different style of collaboration than the one you're advocating. (Real basic example: GM dangles a plot hook about farmers kidnapped by goblins. Player comes up with a reason for his character to care, because he knows that way lies the adventure the GM has prepped. Boom, collaboration.) And both styles of collaboration are prone to abuse by people who would rather disrupt than build.As an aside, calling other play styles than your preferred one &quot;antiquated&quot; or &quot;cynical&quot; isn't going to win people over. If you're trying to encourage people to expand their horizons and maybe try some new ways of setting up their games, putting them on the defensive isn't going to get anyone there.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="SabreCat, post: 4714094, member: 76245"] Jim, why do you feel it's necessary to characterize GM-less play as a means to fix a "disease" or "problem"? Why can't it be an excellent alternative in its own right? Because while I'm such a huge fan of GM-less play that I'm designing a game in that style, I agree with the above posters who've said you can't fix problem players with a change of narrative authority. Players who get frissons out of wrecking the GM's carefully laid plans aren't going to suddenly become attentive, considerate, and cooperative when you change up the rules for contributing to the fiction. Here's a big thought: even traditional GM-player games with lots of narrative authority in the hands of one guy are collaborative. They're just a different style of collaboration than the one you're advocating. (Real basic example: GM dangles a plot hook about farmers kidnapped by goblins. Player comes up with a reason for his character to care, because he knows that way lies the adventure the GM has prepped. Boom, collaboration.) And both styles of collaboration are prone to abuse by people who would rather disrupt than build. As an aside, calling other play styles than your preferred one "antiquated" or "cynical" isn't going to win people over. If you're trying to encourage people to expand their horizons and maybe try some new ways of setting up their games, putting them on the defensive isn't going to get anyone there. [/QUOTE]

Verification