Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="chaochou" data-source="post: 6110581" data-attributes="member: 99817">But in this specific instance of play - the bit where the wizard and GM collude to keep everyone in this place - what input in this 'collaborative effort' did the Rogue, Cleric and Fighter players have?When this example reaches the crunch, there's no sharing in sight. The wizard (who, according to how this is written, does not have the power to make their sabotage true) asked the GM for permission (who has that power) and it is granted.Is that your idea of collaboration? What you've illustrated, intentionally or otherwise, is a simple heirarchy:GM: Has complete authorityWizard player: Requires GM permission to do anything with machine Other players: Had to ask the wizard's permission to leaveRogue, Cleric and Fighter just get to say meekly what their characters want. None of them, as written, are empowered to change what's happening. All the indications are that to do so would require the GMs permission. Then the GM is faced with the question you put to the reader. Who do I side with here?It's no good paying lip service to 'collaboration' and 'shared control' when, as far as it's indicated, this instance of play features neither.Seriously? There's only so much typing I'm willing to do.I ask questions: "Where are you? What does this place look like? Who do you know here? Who here wants your head on a pole? Where's the nearest place to here? Who lives there? Why did they kill your brother? Why did the machine go wrong? What do you need to fix it?"My friends will create crazy stuff based on their desire to make this fun and character goals, dream up new relationships to make this place interesting to them, talk through what would be fun for them as players (even if it means pain for their characters). I mediate as necessary in that discussion. Mediate, not dictate, not veto, not control. Anything they want left as a mystery they say "We don't know that." Or they can reject things "It wasn't them that killed my brother."But they don't need my permission to do anything, or to know anything. If something is not automatic they can engage the mechanics to do it or know it. They can say 'I'm fixing the machine'. They don't need to ask 'If they can'. They can also say "I've got a bad feeling the demon Arrrklr lives in that lighthouse. I owe him my soul, which could be a problem." My players are actually stupidly likely to say things like that.When they fail at things, or run out of ideas, or have left some things vague, I get to create and mess around with them, with the demon Arrrklr, make failures dramatic or interesting and throw complications into the mix. Otherwise I listen, I watch, I ask lots of questions and I enjoy.Going into the next session of the game I'm running the players are adrift in their spaceship after a nuclear explosion (which they caused) wiped their navigation systems (oops). They've SOSed some military types to rescue them. Next session starts with "So who did you SOS? Who's the commanding officer on that ship? How do you know him/her? Why did you try and have them court-martialled? Why has your navy got a secret base in this system? What did you steal from it?"And so on, round all the players. It'll take fifteen minutes and we'll have the situation, the tensions, the aims and goals, the subplots and leverage and prices to be paid, clearly laid out between all of us.None of which is paying lip service to collaboration. It is  collaboration. None of which pays lip service to player control. It is  player control. There's no 'scenario', no 'story arc', no secrets, no stuff prepared in  advance. Just the characters, some dice, some beer and whatever our  imaginations create that evening.</blockquote>

Verification