You are not the Director

[TarionzCousin]

One thing I've read often (although I can't find a good example right now due to post-work brain pain) is that "Players should have the illusion of control +/-." That is, they should feel like they can do anything reasonable within a game's structure and are capable of accomplishing the goals they set for themselves.

The original Gnome Stew article says that a GM should be a producer, not a director--because "A director controls the action; a producer facilitates it (emphasis in original)."

So my question is: who controls the game? Is the level of control split evenly between all of the participants? Does the GM control, say, 60% and the players control the other 40%?

Or, would you say that "nobody controls the game."?

 

[Fifth Element]

So my question is: who controls the game? Is the level of control split evenly between all of the participants? Does the GM control, say, 60% and the players control the other 40%?

Or, would you say that "nobody controls the game."?

No one person "controls" the game. It would seem at first blush that the DM has more control than any one player, or even the players as a whole, since he controls so many more things than the players do. He controls the NPCs, the settings, the "off-screen" events, etc.

But I would argue that a DM's job involves providing fun for the players, which in some sense puts control back in the hands of the players. So ultimately I'd say "control" of the game, for what it's worth, is fairly evenly split amongst all the participants.

 

[Celebrim]

Or, would you say that "nobody controls the game."?

I would say that no one controls the game.

The split to me is very clear. The players control their characters. The DM controls everything else. If you try to measure this split by the percentage of the game world under control of the DM, it might seem that the game is almost entirely under the control of the DM. However, the game is not actually centered on the game world. The game is actually focused on the player's characters in their role as protagonists. Thus, if the DM is doing his job and not stealing the focus from the players (almost all bad DMing styles involve DMs trying to take more of the spotlight for themselves than they leave for the players, and this is true of everything from railroaded adventure paths to sterile sandboxes), the game itself ends up in no ones full control - much as a story told in rounds can't be said to be in any one's control either.

 

[Celebrim]

Fair enough I suppose. I guess I just find it rather ludicrous that people would try to claim that "there is no script" when it's so obviously false. What is an adventure if not a script?

This is the problem you keep running into. It is not self-evidently false. In fact, I consider that it takes a very high degree of abstract reasoning to picture an adventure as a script. An adventure is not a script. An adventure is an adventure. An adventure is somewhat analogous to a script (maybe), but it is not actually a script. You can't take an RPG adventure, go to a theater, hand it out, and expect actors to make heads or tails of it. It's not a script. It serves a somewhat similar but also very dissimilar role to a script, and it has features that a script generally lacks (like for example a map) and lacks features that a script generally has (like well, a script).

Whether you write the adventure yourself or buy a module, it's a script for what's most likely going to be played that evening.

You are using script very loosely here. I think more clarity is had if you use the terms to mean what they mean, instead of reaching around for terms from other arts. An adventure might be a manuscript or it might be a book. It is not the written text of a RPG play session, which is the normal sense the word 'script' has when we use it to speak of plays, movies, television programs, etc. The actual script - the transcript - of an RPG session cannot be producted before hand. An adventure is something both similar and different, and actually I prefer the common jargon 'module' to refer to a detailed description of a portion the game space that can be explored and which is joined by some common idea or plot.

That the script is not adhered to often, and the script is often very vague, doesn't suddenly mean that there is no script.

There is no script. There is something like a script in as much as you can take a script and add players and get a play and you take a module and add players and get play, but its not an actual 'script' in any normal usage of the word. Now interestingly, an adventure might contain an actual script that the DM (or even the players!) are supposed to recite, but especially in the case of player recited scripts this is generally seen as poor practice (although some famous modules have experimented with it and some players like it). On the other hand, for a real script, to not have dialogue for the players to recite would be seen as avant garde at best and ridiculous at worst.

 

[TarionzCousin]

No one person "controls" the game. <snip> So ultimately I'd say "control" of the game, for what it's worth, is fairly evenly split amongst all the participants.

I would say that no one controls the game.
<snip>
The split to me is very clear. The players control their characters. The DM controls everything else.

But doesn't that put the control of the game within the DM's reach but outside of the players' reach? To clarify, the DM can do anything, but the players' characters can only do what the DM allows.

This brings me back to the players' "illusion of control." Their characters can only do what the DM allows.

Of course, a good DM should allow the players near-total control of their characters, but that is a horse of a different color.

/playing devil's advocate, not looking for a fight.

 

[pemerton]

the DM can do anything, but the players' characters can only do what the DM allows.

This is a controversial claim about RPGs in general, and in my view controversial even in respect of D&D, although D&D does have a strong thread running through many editions that suggest the GM is not constrained by rules.

My personal preference is for a game in which both the players and the GM play by the rules of the game -where "rules" includes not only character building and action resolution mechanics, but encounter-building guidelines, reward mechanics, etc. (Of course those rules may be negotiated among the participants rather than taken straight from a published text.)

 

[Fifth Element]

You are using script very loosely here.

When dealing in analogies, that's what you'll get. If it fits precisely, it's not an analogy.

 

[Fifth Element]

But doesn't that put the control of the game within the DM's reach but outside of the players' reach? To clarify, the DM can do anything, but the players' characters can only do what the DM allows.

This brings me back to the players' "illusion of control." Their characters can only do what the DM allows.

In theory, yes. But you have to consider the social contract as well. If the DM actually prevents characters from doing things their players want them to do, most groups would find this an abuse of the DM's authority.

 

[TarionzCousin]

In theory, yes. But you have to consider the social contract as well. If the DM actually prevents characters from doing things their players want them to do, most groups would find this an abuse of the DM's authority.

Good point.

So, perhaps I should say "In theory, the DM has complete control. In actuality, if he exercises complete control, he won't have any players."

The players essentially have the ultimate veto over the DM's control.

Edit: You must spread some Experience Points around before giving it to Fifth Element again.

 

[Fifth Element]

So, perhaps I should say "In theory, the DM has complete control. In actuality, if he exercises complete control, he won't have any players."

The players essentially have the ultimate veto over the DM's control.

I think that's a fair summary. It's possible, I suppose, that some players do want the DM to exercise complete control, in which case the DM should do it. I'd think that would be quite rare, though.