Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Bedrockgames" data-source="post: 8992080" data-attributes="member: 85555">I think both approaches have their value. If you are going the GM power route it should be in service to player agency in my opinion (balanced out by campaign considerations like setting fidelity, and the level of reality operating in the campaign world). I think where GM power can go wrong is when the GM gets set on their own ideas about what they want to happen or should happen, and when they aren't responsive to cues from the players that they are seeking to go another way. For me what makes this approach powerful is the player gets to say what they want to do, and unlike a video game or board game, the GM facilitates fully that interaction with the world (which is why being able to go beyond the rules as written is important---though this has a danger too of the GM ignoring rules when they are inconvenient). I have played other games that empower players, and I think those are in a way, trying to answer the same problem that GM power creates (though they can also be a response to some ways that GM power gets handled). The one that resonated most with me was Hillfolk because while it allowed me to control elements of the setting and plot it was primarily through dialogue, which had a similar immersive effect I look for in more GM power oriented exploration based campaigns. I think what this showed me, after ages of being skeptical of more narrative systems that either give players greater control of the plot or develop mechanics for facilitating story, is that the problem for me was never players being given power, it was purely about the systems I had played before. So I often encourage people to give it a try (even if they have that same wariness) because it can open up doors in gaming you didn't realize were there before</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Bedrockgames, post: 8992080, member: 85555"] I think both approaches have their value. If you are going the GM power route it should be in service to player agency in my opinion (balanced out by campaign considerations like setting fidelity, and the level of reality operating in the campaign world). I think where GM power can go wrong is when the GM gets set on their own ideas about what they want to happen or should happen, and when they aren't responsive to cues from the players that they are seeking to go another way. For me what makes this approach powerful is the player gets to say what they want to do, and unlike a video game or board game, the GM facilitates fully that interaction with the world (which is why being able to go beyond the rules as written is important---though this has a danger too of the GM ignoring rules when they are inconvenient). I have played other games that empower players, and I think those are in a way, trying to answer the same problem that GM power creates (though they can also be a response to some ways that GM power gets handled). The one that resonated most with me was Hillfolk because while it allowed me to control elements of the setting and plot it was primarily through dialogue, which had a similar immersive effect I look for in more GM power oriented exploration based campaigns. I think what this showed me, after ages of being skeptical of more narrative systems that either give players greater control of the plot or develop mechanics for facilitating story, is that the problem for me was never players being given power, it was purely about the systems I had played before. So I often encourage people to give it a try (even if they have that same wariness) because it can open up doors in gaming you didn't realize were there before [/QUOTE]

Verification