Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7344976" data-attributes="member: 42582">I'm going to requote your post so we're both on the same page:Here are the most striking things you say that are at odds with my experience:* That it's hard to find people who share a similar vision of the game; * That, in RPGing, too many cooks spoil the broth; * That it is more efficient for the GM to establish all the shared fiction, rather than be one of several people who are doing that.It's a long time since I've played in club groups, but back when I did I had no trouble finding players who (i) were interested in joining a player-driven game (many of the players who joined my group back in those days were refugees from various forms of railroad), and (ii) who had interesting ideas to contribute to the game in the build and play of their PCs.On those occasions when I was a player rather than a GM I also encountered plenty of players who would fit these descriptions, although they weren't always able to live them out because the GMs of those games were typically interested in highly GM-controlled play.As for too many cooks spoiling the broth, again I've not had that experience. I'll give one illustration: In my first long-running RM game, one PC ended up allying with Vecna. I established one of Vecna's goals as being to help the Great Kingdom conquer Rel Astra. That PC supported Vecna in that endeavour, despite it meaning he had to betray his home city. Another PC, whose long-term goal had been to be a magistrate in Rel Astra, joined with this assault on Rel Astra in return for a promise of a magistracy under the new regime.That episode wouldn't have occurred but for (i) one of the players having his PC's goal be world domination, (ii) me introducing Vecna into the campaign as a force capable of such a feat, (iii) that player therefore making a choice to have his PC ally with Vecna, (iv) me framing a situation involving Vecna which forced that first player to choose between two loyalties for his PC (city vs Vecna), (v) another player having his PC's goal be attaining a magistracy, and therefore (vi) the first player being able to persuade the second player to sacrifice his city's independence for his own desire for promotion.To me, this is RPGing at its best: multiple participants expressing their ideas through their various participant roles (the players playing their PCs in accordance with their understandings of dramatic need; the GM framing situations that put those dramatic needs to the test). It simply couldn't happen with a single "cook" - just to focus on one aspect of it, if the GM is the one who establishes who the PCs are to ally with, or what should be sacrificed for what (eg by giving advice on what sort of choice would conform to an alignment requirement), then where is the drama and the emotional wrenching?Not all my RPGing moments involve such high-stakes situations - partially because I'm not as good a GM as I would like to be, partially because sometimes everyone dials it back a little bit and just coasts along for an hour or a session - but the sort of thing I've just described is undoubtedly the goal, and it depends upon multiple cooks.Finally, as for efficiency: it seems to me far more efficient to let stuff be established either by a quick collective discussion, or by engaging in action resolution, then for the GM to write out a whole lot of stuff in advance. I spend my prep time for Traveller rolling up characters, rolling up worlds and designing ships. Those give me the stuff I need when the game systems or the situation call for it; I don't need to write up a whole "atlas of the Imperium" and list of secret plots as well. That can all be worked out during, and as part of, play.This is why I inferred that you must have had some terrible experiences with players who couldn't be trusted. Because if you'd had the sort of (non-terrible) experiences I've had then you wouldn't think that I've been in "incredibly unique gaming circles".</blockquote>

Verification