Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="KarinsDad" data-source="post: 5499572" data-attributes="member: 2011">Good analysis.I do think, however, that the approaches are not necessarily mutually exclusive.As people, we like to compartmentalize ideas, but I have seen some subset of all three approaches done in a single campaign.The DM has prepared material, but not just one adventure (kind of like the node idea where each node is partially fleshed out, but not all nodes have to be reached). The players explore their thematic elements, make nearly all of the direction decisions, but those eventually lead to some subset of the DM's prepared material. Sometimes, the DM has to modify that material on the fly to suit the moment, but for the most part, he just finds a convenient way to insert it in. The DM adds new elements (and adventures/nodes) to his world all of the time, but his world also has elements that are immutable to the desires of the players (e.g. No, the elves don't sing songs around a campfire in my world). The DM decides which campaign elements are immutable and which can be modified, the players do not.Since the DM has the prepared PC backgrounds, he has a general idea of elements to add to his world before he even starts and he just expands upon that as the campaign progresses.This is a more balanced approach that doesn't make it an either/or. At the same time, the DM is still the final authority and also impartial. It also allows for more diverse groups of players since each player can be in the spotlight some fraction of the time and participate the way he or she wants to.I have never experienced a gaming group that used the shared authorship that you linked to. Not to sound too haughty, but it sounds like a bunch of DM-wannabes (or a DM who has problems being in authority). I could see such a group easily having problems because of shared authorship conflicts.This is where "Just Say No" comes in. The DM can allow such shared authorship (I wouldn't, but then, I'm an old grognard), but he sometimes has to take the reins.And I could see problems where a DM wants his players to participate in a certain way or to a certain amount in such an environment, but some players have different gaming goals in mind. One of the most important things for a DM to learn is that not all of his players are going to react the way he wants or expects them to, especially to fill in the narrative. Players will do unexpected things and some of those unexpected things will shut down a narrative as much as add to it (i.e. the player will not engage or will engage off into a side direction). By giving players a high level of authorship, those unexpected things that they do could be quite monumental and even disruptive to the campaign.One aspect of the gaming community "entitlement" movement is that it trains players that most anything is ok. Any idea is fair game, any PC build is fair game, any stunt is fair game, any feat is fair game. Everything is balanced and ok, and don't worry, the DM will adjust to any minor issues.And people being people, this brings out the worse in some people. Like a young child who is denied a toy, some players (not all, but some) in a shared authorship environment might feel shut down when a scene doesn't blossom in the way they were imagining and that will be doubly worse if the DM ever just says no.Kind of like cowboys and indians:I shot you first.No, I shot you first.No, I shot you first.Just on a different level. And the dominant players will often prevail.The final authority concept really is the reason that we (i.e. most of us) use dice and don't improve to the nth degree. There are pre-defined boundaries via rules and roles. By sharing authorship, the roles lines start to get muddied. Sharing authorship is probably ok, but it should be done through a filter (i.e. the DM) who can say yes or no (instead of just yes).</blockquote>

Verification