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.

"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.

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.


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.

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

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.

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.)

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

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?

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

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.

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.

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.




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

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.

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.



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.

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

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]

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.

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.

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.


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.


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.

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.

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).



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



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.

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?


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.

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.

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?

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.


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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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

How it's supposed to work?

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.

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.

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.

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.


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.


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.

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


Also, you're wrong.

Reducing the threat.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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 stops here.


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

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.