Ridley's Cohort
First Post
Geron Raveneye said:That's easy...he was my best friend. The fights we had were epic. Ah, puberty...
It took me a while to parse out whether the epic fights you were referring to were in game or out of game.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
On taking power away from the DM
- Thread starter Quasqueton
- Start date
It took me a while to parse out whether the epic fights you were referring to were in game or out of game.
Geron Raveneye
Explorer
Ridley's Cohort said:It took me a while to parse out whether the epic fights you were referring to were in game or out of game.
I fear the line between that was a bit blurry at times...but I guess I'm not the only one who had a lot of heated out-play arguments about something that happened in-game, as a teenager. Quasqueton
First Post
Dragon magazine, March 1988
Quasqueton
buzz
Adventurer
Interesting aside: http://www.story-games.com/forums/comments.php?DiscussionID=4425&page=1#Item_4
Summary: It's not a zero-sum game. Empowering players with more input does not mean that you're removing input from the GM.
Made a little light bulb go off in my head.
Summary: It's not a zero-sum game. Empowering players with more input does not mean that you're removing input from the GM.
Made a little light bulb go off in my head.
many types of power
An RPG is a system for creating events around characters that are interesting and hopefully tell a story as they face and deal with issues. It is a way of defining who has the authority to do what in that process of creation - how possible events/desired events become accepted as what happened or are not so accepted or how they instead are randomly modified. There are all sorts of ways to divide up this authority other than "some people define a character and act on world through what that character could do in it, one person defines everything else in world and provides adversity to the characters".
Get a copy of Push (new thinking about roleplaying) from lulu.com and you will see, among many other goodies in it, a good breakdown of the range of elements in an RPG from setting that an RPG has to give someone "authority" over and how games in past decade have increasingly experimented with distributing this authority in different ways.
Donjon or True 20's arabian setting for example, where (loosely translating into general example) a PC can with a Listen check can instead of hearing what the GM says, define what it is they hear. This is a way of redistributing authority within the game.
Burning Wheel, where you make a Circles check (a check against your familiarity with a certain type of person) to locate an NPC that you are defining and creating ~ who will exist pass or fail but fail will be a problem for you not a benefit.
Mortal Coil where players define the magic system as play goes on using an in-game economy of resources.
Universalis which does away with GM completely and instead creates and economy among players to reward providing GM like adversity and creating the content and actions of a story.
Speaking as a GM, I prefer proactive, empowered players because that makes a more exciting game that is not just "my story unfolding".
An RPG is a system for creating events around characters that are interesting and hopefully tell a story as they face and deal with issues. It is a way of defining who has the authority to do what in that process of creation - how possible events/desired events become accepted as what happened or are not so accepted or how they instead are randomly modified. There are all sorts of ways to divide up this authority other than "some people define a character and act on world through what that character could do in it, one person defines everything else in world and provides adversity to the characters".
Get a copy of Push (new thinking about roleplaying) from lulu.com and you will see, among many other goodies in it, a good breakdown of the range of elements in an RPG from setting that an RPG has to give someone "authority" over and how games in past decade have increasingly experimented with distributing this authority in different ways.
Donjon or True 20's arabian setting for example, where (loosely translating into general example) a PC can with a Listen check can instead of hearing what the GM says, define what it is they hear. This is a way of redistributing authority within the game.
Burning Wheel, where you make a Circles check (a check against your familiarity with a certain type of person) to locate an NPC that you are defining and creating ~ who will exist pass or fail but fail will be a problem for you not a benefit.
Mortal Coil where players define the magic system as play goes on using an in-game economy of resources.
Universalis which does away with GM completely and instead creates and economy among players to reward providing GM like adversity and creating the content and actions of a story.
Speaking as a GM, I prefer proactive, empowered players because that makes a more exciting game that is not just "my story unfolding".
Honestly, it makes GMing easier, as it's no longer entirely on my shoulders to make the game rock.pallandrome
First Post
My personal point of view is that when I'm GMing, my word IS law. Subject to change at my whim. I ask my players if they are ok with this before a campaign starts, and if they say no, I don't run the campaign. No hard feelings. If they say yes, then I will listen to their disagreements with my calls (cause lets face it, there are ALWAYS going to be disagreements with calls), and then make whatever ruling I feel best. At that point, my decisions are final, and not to be argued with.
I know this sounds somewhat draconian, but I'm of the opinion that if a GM is not free to adjudicate the rules as he sees fit, then the game is far more likely to suffer than not. Similarly, if the players cannot trust their GM to do so fairly, then they will always have to put up with "Jerk GMs" if they don't buckle down and boot his sorry butt to the curb.
One of my primary precepts to living a happy social life (and I think we can all agree that D&D is a highly social game) is to understand that you, and ONLY you are responsible for what goes on in your life, be it putting up with jerk GMs, or letting your players burn away half of your evening argueing with you.
I know this sounds somewhat draconian, but I'm of the opinion that if a GM is not free to adjudicate the rules as he sees fit, then the game is far more likely to suffer than not. Similarly, if the players cannot trust their GM to do so fairly, then they will always have to put up with "Jerk GMs" if they don't buckle down and boot his sorry butt to the curb.
One of my primary precepts to living a happy social life (and I think we can all agree that D&D is a highly social game) is to understand that you, and ONLY you are responsible for what goes on in your life, be it putting up with jerk GMs, or letting your players burn away half of your evening argueing with you.
