GM Styles, Collaborative vs. "Benelovent Dictator" Options

[noonesshowmonkey]

What you're not mentioning is that it's never a 100% dictatorial process, either. In fact, it's usually a more collaborative decision than you might realize.

I would really appreciate it if you would stop telling me that "I might just realize [such and such]" if I thought your way. First, I do not (in case that was not abundantly clear). Nor do I care to (also, in case that was not abundantly clear). I understand my own gaming style pretty well, thanks. I, at no point, have debated that gaming has collaborative elements - maybe even a majority collaborative process. What I do debate is the extent of that collaboration. I believe that there is a stopping point, a distinct boundry to which collaboration is either paying diminishing returns or is simply not the appropriate tool for the game. We have butted heads before on how much collaboration, GM fiat (your wording, here) etc. is acceptable in gaming.

I do not believe in adbicating or dissipating the authority and responsibility of running the game. My reasons for this, as I pointed out earlier in the thread, are nigh on identicaly to MaxMahem's: the abdication of responsibility by the GM into the hands of the players puts the fate of PCs into a state of surety that marginalizes their efforts in ways that erode the game's challenge, suspension of disbelief and fun. There are ways around this, sure; but I do not prefer those game systems. Further, I consider those systems to work well within themselves. I have tried 'Drama Dice' in games before and the feel of the game was noticibly changed as was my intention. As the GM I looked to other mechanical devices to achieve a certain feel to the game. What I find amusing is that I, rather autocratically I might add, forced a rules set into a game (where these rules really did not belong) to achieve a goal. My players went with it (I guess their aquiessence was a sign of 'collaboration') and everyone had fun (our goal, right?).

In any case, I will be (mostly) bowing out of this nonsense. My position has been stated really very clearly. I have used the term 'organic' (as Max did) countless times amongst my gamers. I strive to create a world that exists with or without the players and will react in an intelligible and real fashion with whatever my players do. To draw on the other thread where Cain and I butted heads - a car does not go Mach 4 without ripping itself apart as physics in my SR games still apply in any situation. These kinds of fundamental laws govern the way that I run games. Once I have enough of them in place, have a bevy of NPCs and locations etc. the PCs are free to run about doing what they do (Generally killing people, breaking or stealing stuff for money. Gotta love SR.) willy nilly. What does happen, though, is that some incredible improv will grow out of the game. Because I understand what the world contains, how it lives and breathes (and my players grow to understand as well) there is a great deal of continuity that grows between events. Once the great wheezing beast is cobbled together I can turn her on and let her run with little interference.

[Pendaric]

"The ultimate mastery of any style is no style." Bruce Lee

I discribe my style as benevolent dictator. Yet I am very very collabrative with my players before, in and after the game. Which is why I use an oxymoron to describe my stlye.

Why place divisions where none exist?
The correct way is what works for you and the group your with.

Demanding any particular method, in any direction, is the 'BEST' is usually pointless. The entire point of the oxymoron phase is to underline no one way will work all the time.

As demonstrated by this thread, you just go round and round.

Hopefully the youngsters and other inexperienced DS'ers can take the best from both camps, make it their own and have some fun.

[Cain]

Is the GM being collaborative? Definitely. Is he being benevolent? Definitely. Is he still a dictator? YES. Why? Because, even though he gathered information, he had the option of saying "okay Bob, you gotta trust me on this. Joe, I'll let you pre-empt Bob by asking him to hang out in the car on this one." And within that game, that decision continues (if the players leave, the game ends). He basically had the option of choosing between 1, 2 and 3 and he himself chose based on the information he gathered (even if the one he chose was the one most of the people voted for, the point is, he chose it).

The difference here is that a dictator demands final say. A collaborative GM requests it.

To put your answer in perspective, a dictator would simply take option one: Say no. A "benevolent dictator" would say: "It doesn't work, trust me on this, guys." (your option #2) and if he's a good GM in other areas, his players will likely go along with it. A collaborative GM would come clean, the way you describe.

I do not believe in adbicating or dissipating the authority and responsibility of running the game. My reasons for this, as I pointed out earlier in the thread, are nigh on identicaly to MaxMahem's: the abdication of responsibility by the GM into the hands of the players puts the fate of PCs into a state of surety that marginalizes their efforts in ways that erode the game's challenge, suspension of disbelief and fun. There are ways around this, sure; but I do not prefer those game systems.

And there it is. You seem to believe that players will always put their victory above having fun in the game. That is simply not the case. The vast majority of players are more mature than a ten year old girl, and these preteen girls were voluntarily complicating their situations, just to have more fun. You cannot say that full-grown adults are less interested in a fun game.

[krayola red]

...and these preteen girls were voluntarily complicating their situations, just to have more fun. You cannot say that full-grown adults are less interested in a fun game.

Dammit, I really should start reading threads from the beginning.

[Pendaric]

I do advocate this usually.
Let me save you some time by recapping: "I am right." "No your wrong and I am right." "Your both wrong the answer is in the middle." "No, I am right!." "NO I AM RIGHT!""Your both wrong the answer is in the middle." Repeat.

Along the way is some interesting reffing perspectives and insightful ref techniques. Enjoy.

[nezumi]

Cain: I am right.

(Again though, I don't think we're disagreeing, except in definitions. I think the benevolent dictator can use option #3 and still be a benevolent dictator. It's only if he decides on #3 (sorry Bob, you wait outside) choosing the best of the suggestions, the party stops and says no, by a vote they prefer Bob be there, the GM sticks to his previous decision (perhaps saying that it's important Bob not seduce the NPC) and he is overruled by the players, against his will (he does NOT accept their decision, but is coerced or forced into going along with it). At this point, it is clear the GM is not a benevolent dictator, in that he does not have the power to be a dictator at all, AND the game is collaborative. Saying collaboration and benevolent dictator is opposed is like saying democracy and socialism are opposed, which isn't true. One is how you govern, one is how you run your economy, and they are completely compatible.)

[Cantankerous]

I was comparing to the collaborative games out here where the GM is supposed to ask the players how they want the scenario to continue ("do you want the bad guy to survive or do you want him to be dead for good?") or where the players can decide (sometimes spending special points to do so) that the mysterious serial killer happens to be exactly in the neighborhood they decided to investigate that night. My game might be more collaborative than other, but I don't go that far.

Dear god, that's not only extreme, it sounds ass backwards.This isn't Shadowrun is it? It sure as hell sounds as anti-Shadowrun as you can get. That's not collaboration away. That's a group with a "Ring of GM Control", where is his/her part of the "collaborative" effort in that?


Isshia

[Cantankerous]

Yet I am very very collabrative with my players before, in and after the game.

In what manner is this vaguely dictatorial? Before, in and after. Where does this leave time for "my way or the highway"? Or is there a period that is not before the game, during the game and after the game that I'm missing? (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

Does "dictator" (whether the person thinks they are being benevolent or not being immaterial) NOT conjure up the image of "my way or the highway"? Or is the term being so nerfed that it has lost anything like meaning that it might have had?


Isshia

[Blade]

Dear god, that's not only extreme, it sounds ass backwards.This isn't Shadowrun is it? It sure as hell sounds as anti-Shadowrun as you can get. That's not collaboration away. That's a group with a "Ring of GM Control", where is his/her part of the "collaborative" effort in that?

Yes it might seem strange to you, but that's the way some collaborative games (especially recent trendy indie games) are. The most surprising use of that idea I've seen is in the French game "Vermine". The game is set in a post-apocalyptic earth in which Nature is making all it can to wipe out the human race. There are Totems which influence the way Nature acts and, on the long term, shape the world. In this game, the GM is supposed to ask the players to choose an outcome to a specific situation at the end of a game. (Such as, after beating up a major enemy "Will that creature crawl away from here to find another place to live or will it come back at you with more allies?") The decision of the players will change the Influence of each Totem and because of this will have an impact on the world that the PC themselves could never have.

I have to admit I've never understood why they chose to let the players influence the way the world will evolve in a game where the basic idea is that the world itself is out to get you.

[nezumi]

Does "dictator" (whether the person thinks they are being benevolent or not being immaterial) NOT conjure up the image of "my way or the highway"? Or is the term being so nerfed that it has lost anything like meaning that it might have had?

If "my way" is "poll the players for information and choose the most popular course", that would be a collaborative dictator. My boss regularly will ask all of us what we think is the best course of action and tell us to "go to it". But that doesn't mean if I decided to go against her orders I wouldn't be facing the highway.

[Cantankerous]

My boss regularly will ask all of us what we think is the best course of action and tell us to "go to it". But that doesn't mean if I decided to go against her orders I wouldn't be facing the highway.

Yeah, but that is your boss. Are you paying your Players? There is value exchange there that places one in a natural position of authority that does not AT ALL need to exist in the other.

If "my way" is "poll the players for information and choose the most popular course", that would be a collaborative dictator.

No. That would simply be a collaborative game. The GMs position makes him/her the person who must naturally make the determination of how the ideas are going to be implemented. If not the Players know ahead of time exactly what is going on and in Shadowrun (SHADOWrun) especially, this style simply isn't even properly ponderable. The Players choosing the outcomes is completely antithetical to the genre where a great deal of the basis of it is backroom deals that are NOT common knowledge and staying out of "the light".


Isshia

[psychophipps]

The funny part about this is that our group never argues with the GM. We might ask for a clarification. We might point out how a rule actually works for the GM's info. Hell, we might even decide that the rule is whack and make up one that makes more sense to us as a group on the fly. Lots of collaboration and we play a straight-up game so there is minimal internal issues.

But we never, EVER actually argue with our GMs. We're old skoolers and we have too much respect for the hard work that has gone into the game we're playing in to mess up what's going on in the game by being little bitches like that.

[nezumi]

Yeah, but that is your boss. Are you paying your Players? There is value exchange there that places one in a natural position of authority that does not AT ALL need to exist in the other.

Yes, I provide a game (i.e. services rendered). If the players don't want to follow my rules, they can go find their own game. So far none have taken me up on the offer. They apparently think that getting a good game is worth the trouble of following the rules I set down, no matter how arbitrary.

No. That would simply be a collaborative game. The GMs position makes him/her the person who must naturally make the determination of how the ideas are going to be implemented. If not the Players know ahead of time exactly what is going on and in Shadowrun (SHADOWrun) especially, this style simply isn't even properly ponderable. The Players choosing the outcomes is completely antithetical to the genre where a great deal of the basis of it is backroom deals that are NOT common knowledge and staying out of "the light".

You seem to be arguing two different things here.

Yes, in Shadowrun, it is generally not desirable to allow players to vote on plot elements, I concur and never argued otherwise.

However, if a GM takes a poll and goes with the popular opinion, that does not make him NOT a dictator, even though it does imply he is collaborative. I consider myself a benevolent dictator, but I take votes on house rules. Does that fact suddenly make me NOT a dictator? After the vote, I choose whether to include them or not (sometimes I've decided against an agreed upon rule, but generally not. Otherwise, why suggest it in the first place?) But once they're implemented, if a player decides he doesn't like the rule, he still either has to abide by it or find a different game. Simultaneously, there are some rules I say will stand (or won't be implemented), vote be damned.

So am I sometimes a dictator and sometimes not? I suspect you'll agree that the answer is sometimes I act dictatorial (or even tyrannical) and sometimes not, but that doesn't change the fact that, when the rubber hits the road, it's still my game and I enforce what I want.

[cREbralFIX]

All of this is so easily sidestepped with a few simple guidelines.

1) The GM is a player.
2) All players need to have fun in the game.
3) Player characters shall:

a) work together.
b) have something the PC cares about.
c) have a foil in the form of another PC.
d) have a reasonable background and work with the GM on it.

4) GM provides a story WITHIN which the non-GM players will play in a cooperative and polite manner.
5) Rules shall be discussed and agreed upon by the group for the purposes of fun for all involved.
6) The game is not a competition, but rather is a collaborative effort within the framework of rules and story on the part of all players.
7) Any player can be GM, with the agreement of all the players. (Logically, this usually means one GM finishes his or her story before any change).

If anyone, including the GM does not agree to these meta-rules, I won't play with them. I've been involved with too many games that were miserable experiences.

Shadow Run, by its very rules-y nature, attracts lawyers and other unsavory types. While a rules lawyer can be useful in handling certain details during the game, *focus* upon the rules detracts from the story and mood.*

* Fortunately, our current "lawyer" is very good at acting like a law book: he stays quiet until asked. He realizes we're there to game, not listen to a lecture on the rules.

This post has been edited by cREbralFIX: Oct 28 2008, 05:20 PM

[Cantankerous]

All of this is so easily sidestepped with a few simple guidelines.

1) The GM is a player.
2) All players need to have fun in the game.
3) Player characters shall:

a) work together.
b) have something the PC cares about.
c) have a foil in the form of another PC.
d) have a reasonable background and work with the GM on it.

4) GM provides a story WITHIN which the non-GM players will play in a cooperative and polite manner.
5) Rules shall be discussed and agreed upon by the group for the purposes of fun for all involved.
6) The game is not a competition, but rather is a collaborative effort within the framework of rules and story on the part of all players.
7) Any player can be GM, with the agreement of all the players. (Logically, this usually means one GM finishes his or her story before any change).

If anyone, including the GM does not agree to these meta-rules, I won't play with them. I've been involved with too many games that were miserable experiences.

Shadow Run, by its very rules-y nature, attracts lawyers and other unsavory types. While a rules lawyer can be useful in handling certain details during the game, *focus* upon the rules detracts from the story and mood.*

* Fortunately, our current "lawyer" is very good at acting like a law book: he stays quiet until asked. He realizes we're there to game, not listen to a lecture on the rules.

Perfect. Just bloody perfect. This is how we too have been going for more than two decades over about as many game systems in half a dozen genres and I am here to tell you that all the bitching moaning and complaining that goes in what seems to be far and away MOST of the RP games discussed on most forums plainly and simply DOES NOT EVER HAPPEN if these simple guidelines are followed.

It is only when the "I provide" attitude as a GM gets going, forgetting that the Players too "provide" (and A HELL OF ALLOT too when you let them) services rendered, that things start to get out of whack. If you are doing all the "work", maybe, just maybe, it's because YOU dictate THAT as well.


Isshia

[nezumi]

5) Rules shall be discussed and agreed upon by the group for the purposes of fun for all involved.
...
Shadow Run, by its very rules-y nature, attracts lawyers and other unsavory types. While a rules lawyer can be useful in handling certain details during the game, *focus* upon the rules detracts from the story and mood.*

Aren't these two lines mutually exclusive? I can see two things coming up here;

1)
GM: "You see a dark shadow down the alley."
PC1: "I assense him. I roll and get 24 successes, plus my eagle familiar which has piercing glare."
GM: "He looks mundane."
PC1: "OOC I'm asking, is he mundane? If he's using masking, piercing glare will penetrate that."
GM: "OOC he is using masking, but piercing glare is from a different game. It won't penetrate."
PC1: "We already agreed. Well, sort of. Didn't we, PC2? I think we should take a vote. Who thinks piercing glare should penetrate? Come on, PC2. I bought you pizza. And PC3, that means you can get piercing glare with 10 more karma. Come on guys."
GM: "Guys, if you see through his signature, it'll mess up the whole plot. It's supposed to be a mystery. How does that work if you can just defeat masking and cast locate person?"
(players vote, 3-2, piercing glare overcomes masking.)
PC1: "Okay, we voted. I know what his astral signature looks like. Is it Bob, from the restaurant?"
GM: *sighs* "Yes, and he gets into his helicopter and flies away."
PC1: "I cast locate person."
[Game quickly ends as the party completely sidesteps the plot. GM cries quietly.]

2)
GM: "You see a dark shadow down the alley."
PC1: "I assense him. I roll and get 24 successes, plus my eagle familiar which has piercing glare."
GM: "You don't recognize him physically or astrally. He looks to be mundane."
PC1:"OOC I'm asking, is he mundane? If he's using masking, piercing glare will penetrate that."
GM: "It doesn't. We can discuss later if you'd like, but right now, it doesn't overcome masking. So you don't know if he's truly mundane or not, nor do you recognize him."
PC1: *pouts*
[Story continues, fun to be had for all, with only a tiny bit of rules discussion]

[sk8bcn]

All of this is so easily sidestepped with a few simple guidelines.

1) The GM is a player.
2) All players need to have fun in the game.
3) Player characters shall:

a) work together.
b) have something the PC cares about.
c) have a foil in the form of another PC.
d) have a reasonable background and work with the GM on it.

4) GM provides a story WITHIN which the non-GM players will play in a cooperative and polite manner.
5) Rules shall be discussed and agreed upon by the group for the purposes of fun for all involved.
6) The game is not a competition, but rather is a collaborative effort within the framework of rules and story on the part of all players.
7) Any player can be GM, with the agreement of all the players. (Logically, this usually means one GM finishes his or her story before any change).

If anyone, including the GM does not agree to these meta-rules, I won't play with them. I've been involved with too many games that were miserable experiences.

Shadow Run, by its very rules-y nature, attracts lawyers and other unsavory types. While a rules lawyer can be useful in handling certain details during the game, *focus* upon the rules detracts from the story and mood.*

* Fortunately, our current "lawyer" is very good at acting like a law book: he stays quiet until asked. He realizes we're there to game, not listen to a lecture on the rules.

I do not like it that much, as I rather have a plot that is continuous (a campaign). I wouldn't like to see stuff that doesn't fit in my gamestyle.

For exemple, GM 2 runs a scenario were the PC get befriended with Harlequin, earns Ryumyo as a contact...

Uh, how am I supposed to build on that.

I prefer : a set of characters with 1 gamemaster.

[evilgoattea]

I believe the Players and the GM are both equally important because without one their is no game. That being said I feel like my group is kinda a collebrative effort...I am willing to listen and take into account all sides of an idea...but I also excerise a dictatership in another respect, any final decision will be mine...it kinda has to be this way because players by their very nature are looking out for their interests and sometimes they need the GM to feed them some medicine, even if they don't like it, for game balance.

Anyway, that's just my 2 cents.

[Cain]

[Game quickly ends as the party completely sidesteps the plot. GM cries quietly.]

So what? I think we've all had players sidestep the plot, and it's perfectly okay. Maybe that night, the players didn't want to go the way you want. Instead of whining and crying about it, it's better to go with it. Frequently, what you encounter may be a lot of fun. As long as you don't pout over it, you might just enjoy yourself.

It was Harlequin that taught me what to do if the players blow off your plot. The answer was: Roll with it, and adjust your plot later. This was eye-opening to me: I didn't have to railroad the players into following my plot, I could instead follow their lead and we could all have fun.

So am I sometimes a dictator and sometimes not? I suspect you'll agree that the answer is sometimes I act dictatorial (or even tyrannical) and sometimes not, but that doesn't change the fact that, when the rubber hits the road, it's still my game and I enforce what I want.

No. That makes you a dictator, because you demand final say.

Since the whole Obama/McCain thing is in full swing, I'll use a political example. Technically speaking, in the US, the president has no ability to create new laws. That's the job of Congress. The president also does not have the authority to arbitrate laws, that's the duty of the courts. The president does have command of the armed forces, but he can't declare war (another duty of Congress).

Ultimately, a president cannot demand final say on much of anything. The way our system works, someone else always has the final word. Opposed to this is a dictator, who demands his way or heads will roll. He can be "benevolent", and act in a way that he feels benefits his country, but that doesn't stop him from being a dictator.

What a president has that makes him special, is that he wields an enormous amount of influence, so much that it's often mistaken for power. If your favorite US president came to you personally, and asked you to do something, wouldn't you feel at least a little compelled to do it? Especially if it was something unobtrusive, not against your principles, and he had about a thousand people with him, all agreeing? That's the influence the office holds, so much that it often gets confused as power.

By being a GM, you gain influence. Players will tend to listen to you, and defer to you. Just using this influence does not make you a dictator. It's when you demand final say, "for the good of the story" or "for game balance" or even sometimes: "For your own good", that you cross the line.

Most of the dictators here say that they seldom use this ability. If a power is seldom used, is there a need for it at all? Rather than take total control of a game, and leave hard feelings in your wake, it's better to use a democratic method and be fair to everyone. Personally, I'd rather emulate a Roosevelt or Kennedy than a Castro or Stalin.

.it kinda has to be this way because players by their very nature are looking out for their interests and sometimes they need the GM to feed them some medicine, even if they don't like it, for game balance.

I understand why you feel that way, but that's not the case. I posted a link earlier of some preteen girls who weren't out for their own interests, but in having fun in the game. I refuse to believe that most gamers are less mature than a ten year old girl.

[cREbralFIX]

Look, guys, if you cannot understand that this is a collaborative effort, then don't use my meta-rules. I just posted them there to help out the ones that "get it".

I got it...some people just cannot fathom that a game is just a game. Their egos get in the way, emotions get involved...whatever the excuse is, there's ALWAYS someone who will point out a flaw and try to exploit it.

Discussions on rules during the game detracts from the mood and story. The GM will make a ruling as expedient and move on. A detailed discussion can occur after the session ends. Most people understand this; it's the damn lawyers that will bitch and moan about one roll--as if the end of the world--or their "winning" hinged upon it. Such people get EXCLUDED from games I organize, or I just leave if the group puts up with it.

***

If you're not creative enough to work with previous GM's story, then don't volunteer to GM. It's quite simple. Additionally, as GM, if Harlequin is not in your storyline, then he's "unavailable" at the moment...or he gets back to the characters after the adventure. It's not like the guy is sitting around at home waiting for the PC's to call.

I swear, people are just friggin' silly when it comes to this stuff.

[nezumi]

So what? I think we've all had players sidestep the plot, and it's perfectly okay.

The point of that post was to talk about how a collaborative game results in a lot more discussion of rules. My point doesn't change whether the GM successfully carries on the plot or not, it was just there for closure. So your taking it out of context is completely moot to either the proposed benefit of collaborative gaming (less talk about rules) or my response (actually, more talk about rules, because people debate them in-game).

No. That makes you a dictator, because you demand final say.

Precisely. But I still take votes and follow the result of those votes, so I am also collaborative. Clearly I am both.

Most of the dictators here say that they seldom use this ability. If a power is seldom used, is there a need for it at all?

Fair enough. I'm guessing though that you rarely use the airbags in your car. Why do you need them at all? You paid extra for them. Let me just take them back and refund you the $500 you paid for them.

Why do you want powers you seldom need? Because seldom isn't "never". Sometimes you do need them. In a perfect game with perfect players, whether the game is under a benevolent dictator or not will be impossible to tell. The GM never has to use that power, and everyone just rolls with things, collaborating as expected and playing nicely. That's a good place to be, definitely a desirable state. However, in those cases where the game does NOT go perfectly, having that power is definitely beneficial, even necessary. Had I realized with my first games that I am the boss and not the players, my game would have been a lot happier, rather than a campaign dominated by two strong-personality players, who pushed four more timid players and the GM around. As GM, I let them bend the rules, attack other characters, even at times (I believe, but did not prove, and did not want to prove) cheat. No one complained, even when I asked directly, and no one stood up to them, so we just sort of all fell in line. Collaboration does not work when one or two players are willing to push everyone else around until they agree, and the game suffered because of that.

Had I stood up and said "no, you are sticking by these rules. I know these people aren't saying anything, voting for or against it, but I am. You will stick by the rules. You will roll your dice in front of me so I can see. You will not do X, Y and Z", the quieter players would have come away a lot happier.

[Cain]

Fair enough. I'm guessing though that you rarely use the airbags in your car. Why do you need them at all? You paid extra for them. Let me just take them back and refund you the $500 you paid for them.

I don't have a car. I wasn't using it enough, and the price of gas kept going up. So I got rid of it. Why do I need a car at all?

Why do you want powers you seldom need? Because seldom isn't "never". Sometimes you do need them. In a perfect game with perfect players, whether the game is under a benevolent dictator or not will be impossible to tell. The GM never has to use that power, and everyone just rolls with things, collaborating as expected and playing nicely. That's a good place to be, definitely a desirable state. However, in those cases where the game does NOT go perfectly, having that power is definitely beneficial, even necessary. Had I realized with my first games that I am the boss and not the players, my game would have been a lot happier, rather than a campaign dominated by two strong-personality players, who pushed four more timid players and the GM around. As GM, I let them bend the rules, attack other characters, even at times (I believe, but did not prove, and did not want to prove) cheat. No one complained, even when I asked directly, and no one stood up to them, so we just sort of all fell in line. Collaboration does not work when one or two players are willing to push everyone else around until they agree, and the game suffered because of that.

Then that's your fault as a GM, in letting those disruptive players remain. Not in collaborative gameplay. You were new, so it's not a matter of blame; but you admit that you abrogated your responsibility as a GM. Actually, collaborating would have worked better than you going head-to-head with strong-willed players-- suddenly facing an intervention by all the players at once, yourself included, would be a lot more effective. Being collaborative doesn't mean you can't also be assertive.

I've seen GM's go all dictator on players, and it just leads to hard feelings all around. It also contributes to GM-player antagonism. On the other hand, I've seen interventions work wonders on problem players.

You don't even need to be a dictator to solve an immediate rules dispute. You can use your influence as a GM to get what you need. Instead of: "I'm the GM, it goes my way!", you can say:"Here's the way I'd like things to go, can we discuss it after the game?" Most of the time, even bad players will go with you.

[TheGothfather]

Why is it that collaborative gaming has to mean that the GM necessarily has to abdicate the responsibility of rules arbitration?

ETA: This is a general question, not necessarily directed at anyone in particular.

[krayola red]

Honestly, speaking from a player's perspective, I do not want a collaborative game. When I'm going in to a roleplaying session as a player, I'm looking to play a character, not tell a story. If the storytelling was a shared burden between the GM and players, I would lose one of the things I enjoy most about being a player: not knowing what's going to come next. In real life, you don't get to vote on events that happen to you. If you get run over by a truck or something, you can't go back and say "Hey, I didn't get a chance to vote on that, let's go back in time and say I looked both ways before I crossed the street, because I don't want to get run over by a truck."

Not that there's anything wrong with a collaborative game, I think it can be good time too. But it's like the difference between reading a book and writing a book - both are enjoyable activities in their own distinct way, but I wouldn't want to combine them. Think about your favorite book. Imagine if the author was right next to you when he wrote it, and every time he writes a chapter, he asks you to write the next chapter. Would you really want that? I sure as hell wouldn't. A better question would be: would you want that to be the case with every single book you read?

[Cain]

Why is it that collaborative gaming has to mean that the GM necessarily has to abdicate the responsibility of rules arbitration?

ETA: This is a general question, not necessarily directed at anyone in particular.

It doesn't. It simply means that the majority rules, usually after the session has finished. It means the group decides, but the GM still has input and influence.

Honestly, speaking from a player's perspective, I do not want a collaborative game. When I'm going in to a roleplaying session as a player, I'm looking to play a character, not tell a story. If the storytelling was a shared burden between the GM and players, I would lose one of the things I enjoy most about being a player: not knowing what's going to come next. In real life, you don't get to vote on events that happen to you. If you get run over by a truck or something, you can't go back and say "Hey, I didn't get a chance to vote on that, let's go back in time and say I looked both ways before I crossed the street, because I don't want to get run over by a truck."

That's not necessarily what a collaborative game means. In Wushu, you have narrative control, but the GM still comes up with the plot.

Players are always an integral part of a game's story. Every action you take adds to that story. Increasing the amount of input you have is not a bad thing.

You know, when I get done with my games on another site, I'll post a Wushu conversion of Shadowrun on the PbP section here, so people can see for themselves. It sure would help to have people see how much fun a collaborative game can be.