Common Mistakes Less-Skilled Roleplayers Make, What mistakes do you need to avoid to be a good roleplayer? Options

[Cantankerous]

I'd say the problem is with the word 'important'. The GM and the rest of the players have different and distinct responsibilities. Those change depending both on the rules of the game, and the conventions of the group.

Cain is, of course, correct in the fact that there are GM-less games, and from my understanding some of them work very well. Shadowrun isn't one of those games, and I'd argue that it wouldn't suit itself to GM-less play very well while still being Shadowrun. I'd tend to agree with WeaverMount, though, in saying the the GM's fun shouldn't take precedence over any other player's fun.

It's not GMless, it's shared responsibility and Shadowrun sure as Hell CAN be run that way, as I've been doing since the early mid 90's.



Isshia

[TheGothfather]

It's not GMless, it's shared responsibility and Shadowrun sure as Hell CAN be run that way, as I've been doing since the early mid 90's.



Isshia

Umm... you didn't read what I posted. I said that SR isn't a GMless game. I'm not arguing that you can't run it with a distinct preference toward shared responsibility. I agree that it can, and I think it does very well run that way, as I've more or less stated earlier in the thread.

[Cantankerous]

Sorry, I just get cranked because I've been hearing for years, every time the shared responsibility idea is expounded, that you have to have a freak group for it to work that way, which is such utter BS it's nauseating.

Cain and others, in this htread and others, have talked about more than simply GMless games (which I think gets mixed out when the other games are referenced and then it's stated that Shadowrun isn't one...a thing we all know) but a way in which the GM can can forgo the traditional "my way or the highway" syndrome that is so very, very pervasive.


Isshia

[Jhaiisiin]

My bad, Red, apparently I missed that one post of his. I stand corrected.

[Cain]

I will back off enough to say that if people think I've been browbeating them, I'm sorry. I don't apologize for my debating style, but I don't ever intend to cause hard feelings with it.

To answer Jhalisin's question, I am comparing the GM to the individual players. The most important thing about a game is that people have fun, and the GM has exactly the same right to have fun as anyone else. If the GM is not having fun, something is wrong with the game. OTOH, if only the GM is having fun, something is wrong with the game. And if everyone but one player is having fun, something is *still* wrong with the game.

The GM is not more important than the players. At the most basic level, the GM has exactly the same right to have fun as anybody else. The GM is responsible for more, but even in the most traditional of groups, the other players bring a lot to the table as well.

I suppose the best way to put it is this: Even the GM needs to bow to the will of the Group. If the Group says: "This doesn't fly at the table", then it doesn't fly, regardless of what any one individual has to say about it. And the GM is just one member of the Group, without any special rights or authority over it.

[krayola red]

I will back off enough to say that if people think I've been browbeating them, I'm sorry. I don't apologize for my debating style, but I don't ever intend to cause hard feelings with it.

Haha, don't worry, you haven't. As much as I think you're wrong, I still consider you to be one of the more mellow denizens of the Dumpshock community. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/nyahnyah.gif)

[WeaverMount]

See, here is the problem. It's being likened to the GM decorating his house. This entriely misses the point of what Cain (and others) have been saying since the beginning.

You can't use that metaphor because it isn't the GMs game!

The game background is already provided and any addendums to it CAN BE shared on a nearly equal basis within the whole group! There is absolutely ZERO reason why a bunch of people who are working together to form a great game can't share the load in a very even fashion. Every bloody group I've ran for more than fifteen years now (before that I was a very authoritarian DM/GM/Keeper/Storyteller too) has been run on this basis FAR and away more successfully than they EVER were by myself or anyone else I've seen in that time with them run in the old "it's my world and welcome to it" manner that happens when the GM (or whatever) is a control fetishist.


Isshia

Again, with the needed a closer read of my post. I actually mentioned the player helping to craft the setting.

[WeaverMount]

So Cain,
You know how you just don't approve the day job quality? That is a valid choice made for valid reasons and is an example of the GM being more important that the other players. No other player besides the GM should be able to just unilaterally shoot down a quality like that. It is reasonable a GM to make that move because it is better for the table. Also about a GMs power to shot down rules lawyers, my table runs pretty much everything on consensus . And like everything run on consensus it's a nightmare some times. There are totally times where some one will ask to do something clever and reasonable that isn't explicitly covered in the rules. Then we all good naturedly try to figure it out. Sometime that takes so long we realize it would have been better to make any old snap judgment 15 minuets ago and get on with it. That's why you seed power a GM.

[Cain]

So Cain,
You know how you just don't approve the day job quality? That is a valid choice made for valid reasons and is an example of the GM being more important that the other players. No other player besides the GM should be able to just unilaterally shoot down a quality like that. It is reasonable a GM to make that move because it is better for the table. Also about a GMs power to shot down rules lawyers, my table runs pretty much everything on consensus . And like everything run on consensus it's a nightmare some times. There are totally times where some one will ask to do something clever and reasonable that isn't explicitly covered in the rules. Then we all good naturedly try to figure it out. Sometime that takes so long we realize it would have been better to make any old snap judgment 15 minuets ago and get on with it. That's why you seed power a GM.

Not quite the same thing. I tell players, flat-out, that I despise the flaw, I've always despised the flaw, and that I don't know how to cope with it. If the group decides that it's still a good flaw to use, I'm overruled and I have to deal with it. Generally, it doesn't come to that. I just negotiate out what the player really wants, and work it out from there.

In one SR3 game, I had two different players come to me with that flaw on their sheets. Rather than throw down the GM banhammer, I asked each of them why they needed the flaw. One guy took it so he could take the Ninjutsu martial art, so for him, I just substituted a different flaw. The other guy wanted it to represent his character's "real job" working as a HTR pilot for DocWagon. That took a little more work; I think we ended up with a few high-rating Docwagon employees as contacts, representing his bosses and crew. We also made up a "Dependents" flaw, based on the GURPS rule, representing the people he was responsible for. Not quite easy, but everyone got what they wanted and walked away satisfied.

The important thing here is that everyone had fun. The players liked the replacements, since they got what they wanted in even more detail than before; and I didn't have to cope with that @%#&#!! flaw. 'I didn't act as if I was any more important than any other player; there was no need. I didn't have to use a GM authority throwdown of any stripe, I just used open and honest communication. I find that works much better than any amount of: "I'm the GM, and I say so."

[Ragewind]

Just tossing my two cents here, but not only do I see where Cain and TheGothFather are going with this, but I completly agree. Its not as crazy/hopeless as you guys make it seem. Also I appreciate Cain's and Goth's well thought out and polite posts, its a pleasure to read them!

[WeaverMount]

Not quite the same thing. I tell players, flat-out, that I despise the flaw, I've always despised the flaw, and that I don't know how to cope with it. If the group decides that it's still a good flaw to use, I'm overruled and I have to deal with it. Generally, it doesn't come to that. I just negotiate out what the player really wants, and work it out from there.

In one SR3 game, I had two different players come to me with that flaw on their sheets. Rather than throw down the GM banhammer, I asked each of them why they needed the flaw. One guy took it so he could take the Ninjutsu martial art, so for him, I just substituted a different flaw. The other guy wanted it to represent his character's "real job" working as a HTR pilot for DocWagon. That took a little more work; I think we ended up with a few high-rating Docwagon employees as contacts, representing his bosses and crew. We also made up a "Dependents" flaw, based on the GURPS rule, representing the people he was responsible for. Not quite easy, but everyone got what they wanted and walked away satisfied.

The important thing here is that everyone had fun. The players liked the replacements, since they got what they wanted in even more detail than before; and I didn't have to cope with that @%#&#!! flaw. 'I didn't act as if I was any more important than any other player; there was no need. I didn't have to use a GM authority throwdown of any stripe, I just used open and honest communication. I find that works much better than any amount of: "I'm the GM, and I say so."

So even if a GM is just facilitating consensus that still puts them in a position of power. Two characters in that game got stat-ed in ways you like better for no reason other than that you liked them better that way. I can tell you didn't cram anything down anyone's throat, and they might even like what the got more ... but that just wouldn't happen for any old player. That dynamic combine with SR needing a GM to be played at all is what people are calling "more important" however accurate the term. And those two things are very real, and not incompatible with the notion that GMs should only exercise unilateral power when the whole table is cool with that particular action, and be looking to maximize everyone's fun.

[Cantankerous]

So even if a GM is just facilitating consensus that still puts them in a position of power. Two characters in that game got stat-ed in ways you like better for no reason other than that you liked them better that way. I can tell you didn't cram anything down anyone's throat, and they might even like what the got more ... but that just wouldn't happen for any old player. That dynamic combine with SR needing a GM to be played at all is what people are calling "more important" however accurate the term. And those two things are very real, and not incompatible with the notion that GMs should only exercise unilateral power when the whole table is cool with that particular action, and be looking to maximize everyone's fun.

How is it a position of power? Why does there need to be a position of power?

Adjudicating the rules doesn't require power, it only requires a willingness to abide by the decisions reached; prior to review and discussion AFTER the session is over. No "power" needs to be exercised. Only a modicum of self control. Outside of a session absolutely no "power" exists, simply the desire to reach a workable consensus.

Shared responsibility games are not the GM laying down for anyone. Rather it requires the Players stepping up to take some responsibility for how the game operates as a whole themselves.

Look, I've read your posts. In essence I agree with most of what you say, but not necessarily with how you are saying it. I think the verbage caters to easily to an old worn out method that causes infinitely more problems than it solves and feel that the removal of the idea of "power" and it's exercise can go a loooooong way to alleviating the problem.


Isshia

[TheGothfather]

Just tossing my two cents here, but not only do I see where Cain and TheGothFather are going with this, but I completly agree. Its not as crazy/hopeless as you guys make it seem. Also I appreciate Cain's and Goth's well thought out and polite posts, its a pleasure to read them!

Thanks, man!

[Cain]

So even if a GM is just facilitating consensus that still puts them in a position of power. Two characters in that game got stat-ed in ways you like better for no reason other than that you liked them better that way. I can tell you didn't cram anything down anyone's throat, and they might even like what the got more ... but that just wouldn't happen for any old player. That dynamic combine with SR needing a GM to be played at all is what people are calling "more important" however accurate the term. And those two things are very real, and not incompatible with the notion that GMs should only exercise unilateral power when the whole table is cool with that particular action, and be looking to maximize everyone's fun.

Facilitating consensus does not require power, it requires respect. I'm going through custody mediation now, and the mediator has no power to force us to accept anything. We listen, and take into account what he says, because he occupies a position of respect. Respect is not the same thing as authority. I think you'll agree that a GM needs to earn the respect of hs group, otherwise you'll have serious problems. GM's who demand respect without earning it can cause tremendous issues.

[Neraph]

Allrighty, let me try to settle this mathematically:

V = Value
I = Importance
P = Players
GM = Game Master

GM > P and P > GM are both wrong statements.

V(GM) does not equal P.

V(P) does not equal GM.

I(GM) is equal to I(P).

[Cantankerous]

Allrighty, let me try to settle this mathematically:

V = Value
I = Importance
P = Players
GM = Game Master

GM > P and P > GM are both wrong statements.

V(GM) does not equal P.

V(P) does not equal GM.

I(GM) is equal to I(P).

Perfect

[WeaverMount]

How is it a position of power? Why does there need to be a position of power?

I suppose I made a mistake in using the terms that had previously used. More specific than power, with it's connotations of the tyrannical GM, is influence. It should be obvious that if you are involved in a consensus process you have some influence over it than if you did not participate, yes? The GM is involved in more consensus processes than any other player. So they have more equal shares. Cain got a player to use a different implementation of a character concept. No other player would have a reason to influence another's character like that.

[Cantankerous]

... The GM is involved in more consensus processes than any other player. So they have more equal shares. ... No other player would have a reason to influence another's character like that.

That isn't necessarily the case. In our group it is simple democratic process, majority wins. Period. And sure, we often have a Player (Peter in this case) who has tremendous input on how other characters get structured, because he knows how things run. he checks with me as to implementation for most of it, but trust and respect mean that I don't even really double check anything he does. In another type of group he'd be a rules lawyer and a pain in the ass. in this one he is a HUGE asset. So he has both reason and responsibility and right (as he is asked to participate by the other Players) to influence other characters. And it works out great.


Isshia

[Captian C-Bucks]

That isn't necessarily the case. In our group it is simple democratic process, majority wins. Period. And sure, we often have a Player (Peter in this case) who has tremendous input on how other characters get structured, because he knows how things run. he checks with me as to implementation for most of it, but trust and respect mean that I don't even really double check anything he does. In another type of group he'd be a rules lawyer and a pain in the ass. in this one he is a HUGE asset. So he has both reason and responsibility and right (as he is asked to participate by the other Players) to influence other characters. And it works out great.


Isshia

I think i just blushed.. :> - Well you of course can't agree on everything, but working out houserules - doing certain things during a session - reassuring the rules and such works fine if you have a player that knows the game. It really is - as Isshia said- all about respect. If the 2 persons involved respect each other - and the others opinion - it does work just smooth as silk.

[Cain]

I suppose I made a mistake in using the terms that had previously used. More specific than power, with it's connotations of the tyrannical GM, is influence. It should be obvious that if you are involved in a consensus process you have some influence over it than if you did not participate, yes? The GM is involved in more consensus processes than any other player. So they have more equal shares. Cain got a player to use a different implementation of a character concept. No other player would have a reason to influence another's character like that.

That's not necessarily the case. In my current group, one of the characters is an elven supremacist. So many of the other players were human, that they asked him to tone it down a lot. He did, and things ran much smoother. I didn't get involved as a GM at all.

In the first example, I didn't do anything more than what any other player could do. I asked, I discussed options, and we found a mutually-satisfactory conclusion. You don't need authority to do that. You *do* need respect, but there's more to that than being the GM. Like Cantankerous said, sometimes you have a player who also has earned respect. There's no reason to be jealous; instead, work with him to help the other players.

[Fortune]

That isn't necessarily the case. In our group it is simple democratic process, majority wins. Period. And sure, we often have a Player (Peter in this case) who has tremendous input on how other characters get structured, because he knows how things run. he checks with me as to implementation for most of it, but trust and respect mean that I don't even really double check anything he does. In another type of group he'd be a rules lawyer and a pain in the ass. in this one he is a HUGE asset. So he has both reason and responsibility and right (as he is asked to participate by the other Players) to influence other characters. And it works out great.

See, but then you go and say ... "he checks with me as to implementation for most of it, but trust and respect mean that I don't even really double check anything he does."

You don't say ... "he checks with the group' or even 'we don't really double check".

Why does he check, or even feel that he has to check with you rather than the group as a whole?

[Captian C-Bucks]

See, but then you go and say ... "he checks with me as to implementation for most of it, but trust and respect mean that I don't even really double check anything he does."

You don't say ... "he checks with the group' or even 'we don't really double check".

Why does he check, or even feel that he has to check with you rather than the group as a whole?

I am working on behalf of the group, if this and that guy wants his Diving skill upped - I do it with him. I know how the rules behind it work, I just sit down, subtract the Karma - and add the skill with the Player.
We are the tinkers behind the group, mainly him being the DM of course, but OF COURSE we check with the Group if they are okay with any decision/rule he or we work(s) out!

Edit: Not every Player is interrested in Character-Creation Rules.. some just want the Char to be able to do this, this and that. Then you need people that understand the Rules to sit down and work it out. So yeah- in that procsess some Players get "excluded" - but thats because they want to be =).

[Cantankerous]

See, but then you go and say ... "he checks with me as to implementation for most of it, but trust and respect mean that I don't even really double check anything he does."

You don't say ... "he checks with the group' or even 'we don't really double check".

Why does he check, or even feel that he has to check with you rather than the group as a whole?

No friend, not with me over others, but with me as well as others. Since I'm officiating the rules I have to be on the same page in detail...but no rule lasts longer than it's ability to withstand the group vote...too, there is the "for most of it" part. Sometimes he doesn't, because there is no need. And if there is a question we go through it. Likewise he checks with others before with me on some occasions, because I'm not there and they are. There is none the greater none the least. Period.


Edit: As an addendum, not just we two work things out in other games. In this one we are the only two who went in to re-writing rules sets, but Sandra and Fina both have been rules implementers on many occasions.

[WeaverMount]

Help me to understand why you think statements like "There's no reason to be jealous; instead, work with him to help the other players. " Who do you think is being jealous?

That isn't necessarily the case. In our group it is simple democratic process, majority wins. Period. And sure, we often have a Player (Peter in this case) who has tremendous input on how other characters get structured, because he knows how things run. he checks with me as to implementation for most of it, but trust and respect mean that I don't even really double check anything he does. In another type of group he'd be a rules lawyer and a pain in the ass. in this one he is a HUGE asset. So he has both reason and responsibility and right (as he is asked to participate by the other Players) to influence other characters. And it works out great.


Isshia

Ok so you have an other player who is involved in all character generation. You still write up and describe all the settings, who's there, what kind of opposition the PCs face etc. And yes that could be challenged for any reason but has it? GMs set more down than anyone else that is what I'm talking about.

[WeaverMount]

how do you people not see that by actually doing something that someone else doesn't, whether or not they could have, means they had more influence over the situation. Yes I've had a player/co-gm at my table come up with the core idea for a setting I ran. But the other players didn't contribute to that setting's creation so he and I had more control over the situation. It's not that anyone can't have an hand in anything they want to it's that they don't and the GM does.