Should a GM be a Captain or Navigator?

[lucek]

Ok, the idea is a captain tells the crew what to do, but doesn't steer the ship.
The navigator follows order to steer the ship but has little choice what is done.

So in your opinion should the GM tell the party what needs doing and let the players find their way, or should the GM listen to the players and give them the path to complete what they set out to do.

Now I know this shouldn't be absolute. Also it is an opinion question.

 

[Niccodaemus]

The GM is Captain, Navigator, Ship, Ocean, Whales, Sharks, Pirates, Mermaids, Medic, Storm, Wind, Rocky Shore and Lighthouse on the Fritz. (unless navigating the ship is a mini game, and a PC is the navigator)

I really don't understand your question at all. Can you elaborate? Give an example or two?

 

[jonesy]

Umm.. neither. In the first you are railroading them and they no longer have a choice. And in the second you are giving them a walkthrough to the goal, which also negates choice. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding your analogy.

Do you mean that as the captain the GM just outright says "you need to go here and do this" or do mean that, for example, there is a king that the PC's meet who says "you need to go here and do this"? Two completely different things. The second one is fine.

 

[lucek]

The GM is Captain, Navigator, Ship, Ocean, Whales, Sharks, Pirates, Mermaids, Medic, Storm, Wind, Rocky Shore and Lighthouse on the Fritz. (unless navigating the ship is a mini game, and a PC is the navigator)

I really don't understand your question at all. Can you elaborate? Give an example or two?

It's a metaphor for running a game. Yes the DM can tell the people what their character need to do and how they need to do it but that's also called railroading.

 

[lucek]

Umm.. neither. In the first you are railroading them and they no longer have a choice. And in the second you are giving them a walkthrough to the goal, which also negates choice. Or maybe I'm misunderstanding your analogy.

Do you mean that as the captain the GM just outright says "you need to go here and do this" or do mean that, for example, there is a king that the PC's meet who says "you need to go here and do this"? Two completely different things. The second one is fine.

OK to rephrase one the question is about setting goals vs. providing paths to goals.

 

[TheAuldGrump]

He is the director for an improvisational theater troupe.

He sets a situation, once the 'actors' know what the situation is then they deal with it in character.

The Auld Grump, Nelson and Harlequin in a mummers troupe, once upon a time....

 

[jonesy]

OK to rephrase one the question is about setting goals vs. providing paths to goals.

That doesn't really make your question clearer.

You can set goals by telling the players what the goals are.

Or you can set them by having a character in the game tell the characters that there is a goal they could pursue.

Or the players/characters can set goals themselves.

You can provide paths by telling the players what the path to their stated goal is.

Or you can have the characters investigate to find out what possible paths there are.

Or you can give the players/characters spoken, written, or drawn maps that get them to places the characters should already be aware of, or have already found out about.

That's six different things.

 

[korjik]

He needs to be both and neither and one or the other. It depends on the group dynamics and the situation at hand.

If the group is endlessly planning, then some Captain is needed to get the game moving.

If the group is just starting out in a new world/campaign, then some navigator is needed to get the ball rolling.

If the group has a plan, a goal, and is implementing a course of action, then you need to be neither.

If your group has finished the campaign, and has spent the last two game sessions discussing the relative merits of serving girls of different races, and they havent even mentioned what they are going to do next, then you need to be both.

 

[Incenjucar]

Neither. The GM is the lookout. "Land ho!" "Monsters ahead!"

 

[lucek]

That doesn't really make your question clearer.

You can set goals by telling the players what the goals are.

Or you can set them by having a character in the game tell the characters that there is a goal they could pursue.

Or the players/characters can set goals themselves.

You can provide paths by telling the players what the path to their stated goal is.

Or you can have the characters investigate to find out what possible paths there are.

Or you can give the players/characters spoken, written, or drawn maps that get them to places the characters should already be aware of, or have already found out about.

That's six different things.

You're close but you need to take one step back.

However there is one thing telling in what you said there.

You provided the options (And I'm going to group them as the question is intending them). "You can set goals by telling the players what the goals are, or you can set them by having a character in the game tell the characters that there is a goal they could pursue" VS. "The players/characters can set goals themselves" and "You can provide paths by telling the players what the path to their stated goal is, you can have the characters investigate to find out what possible paths there are or you can give the players/characters spoken, written, or drawn maps that get them to places the characters should already be aware of, or have already found out about" Vs. letting the players actions determine the path to the goals.

The absence of that final option tells me a bit of how you play.