GM Styles, Collaborative vs. "Benelovent Dictator" Options

[krayola red]

Thanks Cain, I actually would be interested in seeing an example of what you're talking about. As far as I can tell, this thread is all over the place, with some posts referring to collaboration as a democratic storytelling process and others as a democratic rules arbitration process. As far as I'm concerned, they're the same thing, since the rules play such a big role in regulating the story.

[TheGothfather]

As far as I can tell, this thread is all over the place, with some posts referring to collaboration as a democratic storytelling process and others as a democratic rules arbitration process. As far as I'm concerned, they're the same thing, since the rules play such a big role in regulating the story.

I will agree with you here.

Cain's talked a lot about Wushu, which is a fantastic game. I'd like to suggest another one - Dogs in the Vineyard. Not so much for the rules, but for the GMing techniques that it talks about, which are very applicable to playing Shadowrun. Basically, rather than being democratic about the story (Votes for the villain dying?), be more reactive as a GM, and just play the NPCs instead of forcing a plot. That way, you can still empower the players without having rules chaos.

[tete]

Having not had a lot of time with the more recent indie game I can't say as I have ever ran a game where the PCs decided the outcome. But for the last 8 years or more I have come into a habit of asking the players "how much XP do you want?" by using a series of questions where the players rate themselves and that rating translates into XP. Its been around since VtM but I'm still amazed when someone is shocked that I just don't hand it out.

[Cain]

I actually have never played Dogs in the Vinyard, which is why I'm not bringing it up as an example. I have played a lot of Wushu, though.

In the legwork thread, someone posted a story where the Troll's player made up Transmorphing Space Ninjas, a 3-V show. In a traditional game, the GM would need to approve such a detail. In a collaborative/narrative game, the player gets to make up these sort of things. There's always a chandelier to swing from, the sail is tough enough to handle you dagger-riding your way down it, and a lot of other details that add up to coolness are just assumed, instead of waiting for the GM's permission. This puts a lot more power in the hands of the player to affect the narrative, but the GM retains a great deal of control over the plot.

I suppose we need to draw a distinction between collaborative rules, and narrative stories. In both cases, the GM does not have the traditional powers associated to a GM. Instead, some of those abilities are assumed by the players. These two don't have to exist together, though. You can have collaborative rules without a narrative game, and vice versa.

[TheGothfather]

I suppose we need to draw a distinction between collaborative rules, and narrative stories. In both cases, the GM does not have the traditional powers associated to a GM. Instead, some of those abilities are assumed by the players. These two don't have to exist together, though. You can have collaborative rules without a narrative game, and vice versa.

This is, indeed, an important distinction. I tend to both play and run games that use heavy player narrative control with very strict rules, like Burning Wheel and Dogs in the Vineyard. I've found that the techniques in those games, as well as Spirit of the Century/FATE work well with the Shadowrun universe, depending on what aspects of the game you want to emphasize.

Really, there's a lot of stuff you can do without actually changing the SR rules that would promote some player collaboration/empowerment. Let them narrate their successes or critical glitches. Throw them a point of karma when they willingly let one of their negative qualities complicate their lives.

[sk8bcn]

I am amazed that the fact I can say:

"No sorry, that won't be the way we play this"

makes me the reincarnation of Staline.

[TheGothfather]

I am amazed that the fact I can say:

"No sorry, that won't be the way we play this"

makes me the reincarnation of Staline.

I'm not saying that. Frankly, I don't care how you play - the only way that you can do it wrong is if your players aren't having fun, or if you're consistently not encountering enough awesome at the table. However, the design philosophies in the industry are definitely changing from the traditional, everybody plays through the GM's story type of design, to a more collaborative approach. And a lot of people running a lot of game systems are hacking in some of these new design concepts into their games.

On the other hand, I've found that a lot of players really enjoy having some stake in the game fiction, either through additional narrative control during play, or by sitting down and workshopping the campaign situation and characters together before play begins. I've also found that these are ideas that are foreign to a lot of people - players often don't even know that there are games or styles of play that allow for that sort of thing.

Nobody says, or at least they shouldn't, that this is the only way to play. But it also shouldn't be dismissed out of hand, because it does work in a lot of cases.

[Cain]

I'll go out on a limb and say that, in my experience, it can be an even more fun way to play.

For example, cool descriptions always help make a game fun, right? In a traditional game (4 players and 1 GM), the GM is solely responsible for coming up with all the cool descriptions. That can be a bit tiring, as it's hard to keep coming up with good imagery. In a narrative game, you have five imaginations to draw off of, instead of just one. That alone dramatically increases the fun quotient of a game, because you have less GM burnout to worry about.

[Pendaric]

Which is a plus. On the down side with out a single vision of the game world, usual from a single ref, the game can fracture into multiple visions and loose consistency.

As always the trick's a healthy balance.

[TheGothfather]

Which is a plus. On the down side with out a single vision of the game world, usual from a single ref, the game can fracture into multiple visions and loose consistency.

As always the trick's a healthy balance.

This can be true. It's a problem of getting everyone on the same page. I don't mean to harp on the same idea, but sitting everyone down and discussing the game - not necessarily the actual "plot" of the game, but the game as a whole - can go a long way to achieving a unified vision of the game world, without having to shut down the ideas of the players.

Also, taking the "game" out of the game in favor of the narrative tends to be a major factor in inconsistency. If the rules are used in the same way by every player - including the GM - then you have less of a need for arbitration. To keep everyone fair, I also recommend dumping the GM screen. Keeping everything in the open keeps both players and GMs honest, in my experience. YMMV with that, I'm just saying that it was very effective at my table, and this was before I started getting my traditional players to try indie games.

[Cain]

Which is a plus. On the down side with out a single vision of the game world, usual from a single ref, the game can fracture into multiple visions and loose consistency.

As always the trick's a healthy balance.

True, but that's why you still have a GM. If the GM decides to not try and hold on to the traditional authority, but keeps a hold of the responsibility for the plot, you'll have an easier time of it.

I like what Gothfather said about sitting down with your players and hashing out expectations before the game begins. This is really no different than what you'd do with any other game, but it does give everyone a chance to understand what it's all about. The fact that the GM isn't more important than the players is explored in more detail, which may be difficult for people to understand at first.

[Pendaric]

Everway is a good example of narrative play.

I agree with mature and experenced players, the level of collaboration goes up, as everyone knows when, where and how to add to the story, everything flows. As I stated earlier, I see the level of fun sliding up a scale to 'no style'. Where everyone is in perfect sync with the story and the roles within it. A symphony of ideas and action.

It really does not matter on the system or style. Its the people playing and the experence.

For me, Benevolent tryanny encapsulates what a ref needs to do.
The buck must stop somewhere, and both the ref and the players elect the decision maker for the good of the game. A good ref will work with and be flexiable for their players and vice versa.
Every gaming situation is unique and must be adapted to,

I see alot of the detraction of a particular style because that person has had a bad experience with it. Or more likely someone with it.

Even in collabrative games, which are influenced by great games that people have experenced, it is simply just another anvenue to get to that moment of emotional pay off that leads to a fun for all.

There is no right way, no correct way, there is just your way.

Open games bring a different style than ref screen games and so different problems for the story. These problems simply have to be met and over come just as in ref screen games.

What am trying to say is why not appreciate the brethe of your tools rather than my way is the correct way outlook?

[sk8bcn]

Can you make a "game-expemple" of a collaborative game.

How it's supposed to work?

[Cain]

Well, let me use the example of Wushu, because it's the game I'm most familiar with.

In Wushu, you don't say "I'm going to try to hit the ork" and roll to see if you succeed. Instead, you describe what you did, and roll to see how effective it was in terms of plot. Your choice of description is only limited by two things: you cannot apply a Coup de Grace to a named opponent until you've run him out of Chi points (unnamed opponents are a different matter, as they don't have Chi); and anyone at the table (not just the GM) can Veto any description that they feel doesn't work.

So, for example, when faced with a horde of undead ninja mooks, you don't say: "I try to hit them." You say: "I quickly flex my arm, causing my Predator to drop into my hand. With two quick shots, two ninja's heads explode." You then roll to see how effective killing two mooks was. For example, there might be a lot of mooks, so dropping two of them isn't helpful; or maybe your precision shooting makes them back off and /or a few run away. What matters is how well you reduce their threat rating.

The better your description, the more dice you get to roll. So, being creative and roleplaying is rewarded over mechanical number-crunching. Yes, I know there's a seeming paradox between Details matter/Details don't matter, but it isn't a problem in actual play.

What makes this game truly different is that the GM gives up a lot of traditional power, in favor of the players adding their own cool details. Think about this: If a character in a traditional Shadowrun game were to run, snatch up a fallen gun, charge up the wall a few feet and backflip into the room, shooting down an enemy-- how many rolls would that require? How much GM discretion is necessary. In Wushu, you just do it!

At any event, it'll probably be a week or two until my game on Rpol.net is done. Once that's freed up, I'll start a Wushu in the Shadows game here, so other people can try it out.

[Rasumichin]

The operative term here is "benevolent", I think. Yes, you have to listen to what the players have to say. Yes, you have to clarify the situation so they understand what's going on in the story. Yes, you have to admit when you're wrong.

You also, however, have the final say in the matter. Full Stop. You also have the right to declare certain scenes and situations as being in "cinematic mode" without the players being whiny little bitches about it.

Hm...as long as the game is running, i think that a mutual agreement between the players that the GM has the final say on how to interpret the rules is the best solution.
I really hate to interrupt games with rules discussions, these should be done afterwards and here, every group member's opinion should have equal weight, as it is the only way to ensure that the group is using a ruleset tailored to their individual needs.

I'm also one of those guys that believe that the rules should stand above the GM.
I generally feel uneasy when the GM breaks the rules "for the sake of a good story".
Not that i mind storytelling, but i want to play a game, not listen to a GM's fanfic (sorry if this sounds like the inversion of "i want to roleplay, not play a boardgame", i don't mean it like that, as i don't see the narrative and mechanical side of RPGs to be mutually exclusive).

For a game to work, you need rules that are binding to all the players.
Don't get me wrong, i spend a lot of time fleshing out my characters, i put a lot of effort into developing them, i lose all interest in them once i get the impression that i have told every interesting story that can be told by playing them, even if they still have potential for mechanical development.
My fondnes of number crunching is able to coexist peacefully with my love for storytelling.

But by storytelling, i mean a process vastly different from writing a traditional narrative.
I'm talking about a collaborative effort, operated under the assumption that it is not drama that guides what is happening to the characters, but chance.
That, as in real life, the brave hero can screw up completely if he has bad luck, that disaster can lurk behind every corner.
That a PC's life is as unfair and possibly cruel as that of any real person.

In this kind of collaborative storytelling, the GM's job is to pick up possible hooks for developing stories offered by the players, to connect them, to provide a dynamic background that will interact with the players instead of being the scenery of a predetermined plot.
A background that both facilitates a flexible and dynamic development of the action (action meant both as in "action movie" and as in "course of events happening" - a good RPG to me describes how characters take their fate into their own hands, daring the possibility of failure) and ties in with the narrative potential the character concepts of the players offer, that is both challenging for the strategist and inspiring for the storyteller.

Under this assumption, a solid rules base is absolutely necessary.
The rules will be the basis of the plans the players make, so one should be able to rely on them.
For the element of chance, we have the dice and the occurence of circumstances the players have not figured out beforehand.

Keep in mind, however, that this asumption is based largely on playing rules-heavy RPGs like SR.

In more classic games such as 1st Ed. TDE or, from what i've heard, 1st Ed. D&D, rules are presented with a different purpose, being much more open-ended than the rules in a game such as SR.
Here, the role of the GM is not so much applying a fixed set of rules, but weighing plausibilities.
That's a completely different way of gaming for both the GM and the players, one that i have found to focus more strongly on truly creative problem solving (as there are no huge piles of bonus dice laid out for the rules lawyer) and one that is also much more lethal and unfair (which is no problem at all, as character creation doesn't take hours, but less than 5 minutes).
This requires a different kind of GM to work, and probably a much more draconic one.
But i'm fine with that old school approach, as long as it is applied within the right system and with players who know what to expect.


Equally, the more story oriented games mentioned by Cain in his first post will facilitate a different kind of play and will require yet another approach to GMing, one where the GM does take a back seat and just keeps things running, where he is not so much "storyteller" in the WoD sense or arbiter/referee, and as well not the sadistic dungeon master for the old school fun, but rather a director, coordinating a collective creative effort, just in the same way as the director at a movie set who coordinates the work of actors, cameramen, writers and countles others.
It's no coincidence that Cinematic Unisystem (a great game, BTW) refers to the GM with specifically that handle.

[sk8bcn]

Cain, another bunch of questions:

-Let's say you made a miserable roll on your action, what's next?Did the kills hapen or have you failed anyway?

-How much can you decide as a player? May I say, "now 3 zombies runs at my throat, and I welcome them with a circular kick" this, despite the undeads had guns and were going to use them in the GM mind?

-May I decide as a player about a description?

If not, I do not see a lot of differences with standart games, just that wushu uses a more cinematic game style.

[Cain]

-Let's say you made a miserable roll on your action, what's next?Did the kills hapen or have you failed anyway?

The kills happen, they just don't matter. You haven't actually reduced the threat they present.

Another example of a mook battle would be trying to put out a fire. You can detail in spraying it with a fire extinguisher, but if you roll badly, the fire comes back just as hot.

-How much can you decide as a player? May I say, "now 3 zombies runs at my throat, and I welcome them with a circular kick" this, despite the undeads had guns and were going to use them in the GM mind?

Sure thing. The GM can always have more zombies to the rear using guns. You can describe anything you wish, except for a Coup De Grace, and things other players Veto.

-May I decide as a player about a description?

Of course you can. And you can Veto descriptions you don't feel are appropriate. So, you can't pull out a hidden phazer and disintegrate the other guy; if you see someone pull that in a Shadowrun game, you get to decide if it stands or goes down with a Veto.

[nezumi]

The kills happen, they just don't matter. You haven't actually reduced the threat they present.

If the kills don't matter, what does matter?


Also, you're wrong.

[Cain]

If the kills don't matter, what does matter?

Reducing the threat.

[Rasumichin]

Wushu's combat system is...well, it just works on a fundamentally different approach than combat in traditional RPGs.

It is much more abstract, opposition consisting not so much of individual enemies (unless you're confronted with a so-called nemesis, a recurring villain), it's more going up against hordes of nameles mooks.

Once you have reduced the threat to zero, the mooks are defeated, until then, they just keep rushing on.
This could, of course, also be represented by a monster that constantly regenerates until the threat is reduced to zero, or by another single enemy who just won't stay dead.

Of course, such an approach to combat resolution is completely incompatible with a traditional approach to combat rooted in wargaming, which is one of the reasons why i'm not too fond of Wushu- but i can clearly see where it's aimed at, even though i prefer The Pool for more narrative approaches towards gaming.

However, if you want to engage in a collective enterprise of cinematic fabulation, Wushu is a quite efficient system.

Just keep in mind that like many modern RPGs, it is highly specialized to perform a specific task.

[nezumi]

Alright, so the army of mooks is basically a single entity. You get points for neat descriptions (like in Exalted). But there's no collaboration in regards to the power of the entity (whether it's an army or a single enemy) beforehand, how effective attacks are against it, or the plot in general, only in the not-plot relevant descriptions?

[Cain]

One of the harder things to wrap you mind around with Wushu is that it kinda doesn't matter what the description is, as long as it's a good one. You can narrate your character getting beat up and/or running away, and still reduce the threat or hurt the nemesis. Think of it like a Jackie Chan movie: he gets beat up all the time, runs away a lot, then comes back strong to finish the bad guys. How effective your attacks are depends on what you roll; but the better your description, the more dice you get and thus the better chance you have.

How much you add to the plot is largely up to you. Other players may choose to riff off your actions, and build more of the plot that way; or you can choose to do the same.

[nezumi]

I don't think I was quite clear. Let me rephrase.

The GM says "there's a force 5 army of mooks attacking". Can the players veto that and say it's only force 3? If the GM says "the butler did it", can the players veto and say it was the widow?

[kanislatrans]

I always have this running around the back of my head when I GM. It keeps me in my somewhat benevolent dictator mode when I sit down at the head of the table. As some of you may have noticed though, I'm a little odd sometimes. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif) (IMG:style_emoticons/default/grinbig.gif)

The Ten Commandments of Spec War

1. I am the War Lord and the wrathful God of Combat
and I will always lead you from the front, not the rear.
2. I will treat you all alike - just like shit.
3. Thou shalt do nothing I will not do first,
and thus will you be created Warriors in My deadly image.
4. I shall punish thy bodies
because the more though sweatest in training,
the less thou bleedest in combat.
5. Indeed, if thou hurteth in thy efforts
and thou suffer painful dings, then thou art Doing it Right.
6. Thou hast not to like it
thou hast just to do it.
7. Thou shalt Keep it Simple, Stupid.
8. Thou shalt never assume.
9. Verily, thou art not paid for thy methods,
but for thy results, by which meaneth
thou shalt kill thine enemy by any means available before he killeth you.
10. Thou shalt, in the Warriors Mind and Soul,
always remember My ultimate and final Commandment:

There Are No Rules -- Thou Shalt Win at All Cost.

I run the show. The players choices move the show, can change the show, and if I allow it ,can even sink the show. But my job as a GM is to push the players out of the"oh, great, another bunch of goons" mode to"Holly shirt!! That was a close one" mode. I cannot do that unless I have creative control. I cannot challenge someone who feels they can argue or rules lawyer things to get their own way even if it has no bearing on the game at hand. Therefore I have to have the final say on what can or cannot happen. I will be fair and impartial. We can all have fun. but the (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nuyen.gif) stops here.


( and a tip of the hat to Richard Marcinko for some Spec War advice that players may want to keep in mind. )

[krayola red]

Honestly Cain, the Wushu system you're describing sounds pretty much the same, fundamentally, as Shadowrun. Instead of 1 bad guy, you have a whole bunch of them, and instead of a damage track, you have threat level. The dice still dictate the eventual outcome of a fight, a player's descriptions are just for flavor.