First part: wha? That wasn't me dude. Talk to Cain.

Second part: "GMs set more down than anyone else..." A) So what? B) Not always. In our present game I'm doing a ton of creative work, because it's a cross over twice over (started as D20 Modern to a hybrid to SR*3 with additions) and hey, I absolutely LOVE the creative aspect of it, but in past games an old friend of mine, Steve, sometimes put in three to four times the hours on background work...this while I was doing three to five hours of set up a week, and I very often just used his stuff (he detailed Europe out for me, tight and intense) as it sat and did nothing to change it.

Opposition is often a group thing to in a way. They have the right to veto a given scenario idea (I never tell them order, just present the ideas) or call in one we have a ready made for that I hadn't included when we start a campaign. I also add a ton of stuff, based on the type of campaign they and I want to do. Really... really, really... there is no facet of the set up that I don't ask for input on. Why shouldn't I?


Isshia

Well I don't know about you, but for me it's not that complex. I'm with friends, we're here to have fun and enjoy the game. When I'm GMing, I'm doing what I can to get my players to enjoy the game, and when I'm a player I'm trying to have fun and let everyone have too, but it never occured to me to wonder about who's got a bigger dick.
The only thing I know is that it takes more work as a GM than as a player, but that never led me to think that I'm better or more important than anyone else in the group... And even if it did, I don't see any point in figuring this one out.

No one in particular. I have seen one GM (two, actually) and heard of many others who did blow up at any perceived challenge to their authority.


A GM has more responsibility than anyone else, but no more authority than any other member of the group. Additionally, as Cantankerous pointed out, some groups have the players heavily involved in the setting elements. I think we've at least heard of settings that were developed by the group as a whole. Just because one person adds more to the setting doesn't mean he owns it, or gets more authority within the group because of it.

Edit:

That's it in a nutshell. Most groups don't need to compare penis sizes for the GM to operate. The GM simply earns the respect of the players, he doesn't have to demand authority.

If anyone's curious about how this works, my Burning Wheel group created the setting for our new campaign on the forums that I run. Obviously, SR isn't the blank slate that BW is, but the process should carry over. Check it out here

hence the double return and transition.

on to cain



Give the obviousness of my possition, and statements as wholly irrelevant as this I get the impress you are more interest in railing ghosts from your past than understanding what other people are talking about.

Now to specifically address you two together, there you too seem unwilling or unable to tell the difference between vested authority/status/"I'm the GM. I can do whatever I want" , and the control and influence one necessarily has as a primary creator. And before you run anyway with that phrase if the GM paints a scene they are the primary creator, if someone else objects to something they may get a detail revised, but the GM still had a lot more to do with creating that set deice the rest of the table combined. Dito for NPCs, plot, meta-plot etc. And yes obviously any of that can and is distributed. Yes it's better all the way around in terms of work load, buy in, enjoyment, and screening for ass-hats. But the GM still is the who puts more ink to paper if you will. In so doing they have a higher level of control. Does the dive bar bathroom smell like piss or bleach? The GM says far far more often that a player will even at tables where that happens at all. That is the kind of control I'm talking about.

Now here is the thing you are both smart people, I know you can see the difference. At this point I'm pretty sure that the self avowed troll and a poster named "Cantankerous" have other agenda that understanding where people are coming from.

The problem is that you're mixing up "influence" and "authority". Sure, a GM has a lot of influence over the direction of a traditional game. But that doesn't translate into authority over the group as a whole, and the group as a whole is where the fun happens.

A good GM will earn the respect of the players. And because they respect him, the players will go along with what he says. If they don't respect the GM, or anyone else at the table for that matter, you've got serious issues. Basically, the GM does not get authority just because he put pen to ink. He gets respect by showing the players that he's interested in everyone having a good time.

Please quote anything that I have written that could lead someone to think that is my position. That is merely the position you enjoy slamming.

My position from day-one has been that there is something that the GM has the other players do not, and some people call that importance.

You're using the terms "influence" and "importance" interchangeably. Just look at your next sentence:

Your position is that because they're more important, they have more authority. The first is not necessarily true-- you can have a game without a GM. What that means is that GMs aren't as important as they'd like to think. The second point is also wrong. Not just because GM's aren't more important, but because even though they have more responsibility, they don't have any more authority than any other member of the group.

Both Cantankerous and myself have asserted that the GM has more responsibilities than the other players. The issue is that this doesn't mean the GM has the right to say: "My way or the highway". The game as a whole belongs to the group. Individuals might take more or less responsibility for the various parts of the game, but ultimately the game is owned by the group. Which, in turn, means that no one player (GM or otherwise) is more important than any other.

No. Just no. I've never said anything to that effect. I've actually gone out of my way to distance myself from that position. I don't really see how I can have a conversation with you when you misinterpret my position and argue against something else. I clarify my position. Then you tell me that what my position is so you can keep on your soapbox.

I think you guys are having such a hard time because you are talking about two completely different things.
Cain is saying "Bad GM's who think they have all the power wreck the game," and everyone else is saying "Good GM's with all the power make the game playable."

There are both good and bad players and both good and bad gm's. One GM can do something (fudge the dice) and be bad, because he fudged the dice to stop the player's from succeeding. Another GM can do the same thing, and cause more Drama and Tension by making a moment spectacular, as opposed to just plane.

As a GM, I have both Responsibility, and Authority. As a player I have only Responsibility. Is the GM more important to the game than any one player? Yes. If you define important as being needed and necessary for the game to run smoothly and enjoyable for everyone. The players have no authority to make the game fun and enjoyable for everyone. They only have the responsibility to run their character the best way they see fit. The GM has the responsibility to make the game run smoothly and fun for everyone and the Authority to make it happen. Take away his authority and he is no longer a GM, just a player.

On a completley different note (on topic as it were)

Elitist role-players who think the only thing to do is RP making dinner. I'm sorry, I don't have 4 hours of my week to waste so that you can play your culinary delight, and then cry foul when the rest of us would rather be shooting and getting shot.

Isn't this discussion rather aimless? You go round and round, but never actually seem to arrive at any point.


If this is your point then it is blatantly untrue. As much as it may rankle you, some, nay most groups DO give the GM more authority then any other member. They give him broad powers to determine the plot, setting, the results of many actions, and to adjudicate the rules. Now of course this authority ultimately derives from the players, who agree to submit to his ruling. And obviously the exact level will vary from group to group. But denying its existence because of these reason is just being boneheaded. Its rather like saying congress doesn't have the authority to pass laws, because that power is ultimately derived from the people, who agree to submit to their laws. True as far as it goes, but obviously not a very useful point when discussing congresses authority.

Attempting to differentiate a GMs 'responsibility' from his 'authority' in these groups is likewise a meaningless distinction because the two obviously go hand in hand. You can't very well tell the GM he has the responsibility for stating up NPCs, but not the power to do it! Or agree that he will be responsible for adjudicating the rules and then deny him the authority to do so by not agreeing to go along with his decisions. Or conversely, give him the authority to stat up NPCs and then decide later that it is actually somebody else's 'responsibility' to do so. It is clear that responsibility cannot exist without authority. You cannot be responsible for thing you do not have the power to affect. And even if you could run a game under such conditions, it is clear that most people don't.


Clearly there may be a link between respect and authority. You are right when you say that the players generally submit to the GM's authority because they respect him. And the GM listens to the arguments of the players because he in turn respects them, and may sacrifice some of the authority they have granted him, and bend according to their issues. But to say that a relationship of authority does not exist because of this relationship of respect exists is false. What is true is that the relationship of respect is the reason a relationship of authority exists. Respect is the cause of authority in this case, but the two remain seperate, and indeed could both exist without one another.

---

Now having thus established that clearly in many games the GM does have more authority than the players. Does this make him any more important? Maybe. Clearly when it comes to acts that are within the fields of authority granted to him, he is more important. A player's (singular) feeling on what the stats for a NPC should be are less important then those of the GM, as the group has granted him the authority to make those determinations.

So in a specific sense a GM is in many cases more important. But how about in a general sense? Maybe. Importance in this sence is a value judgement made by the members of the group. One member might think Fred is more important than Jack because Fred always brings the snacks. He is entitled to his opinon. Similarly there are a number of reasons why the group might decied that the GM is more important than the players. He may put more time and effort into the game then the players do for example.

But the real question is left unasked here. "Does the GM's importance in the minds of the members of the group matter?" Probably not. How I value Fred or Jacks contributions to the game are rather irrelevant from the standpoint of game structure. What matters is the arrangements the group has made in regards to athority. So really what you should change you famous bold yellow sentace to is "THE GM HAS NO MORE AUTHORITY THAN THE PLAYERS." But as I showed above, for many groups this is untrue.



So what? You like running things differently. Good for you. Doesn't make your style any more correct than the rest of ours. The thought that members of the group might delegate authority to the GM to the point where has the right to say "my way or the highway" clearly bothers you. But for many groups, this level of delegation of authority works, and is in fact what they desire. You may think that you know better than they what style would be best. Certian comments of yours seem to indicate this. If so, I would humbly submit to you that the people actually playing in those games are probably better positioned then you are to determine what is right for their groups. In any case they are the only one with the right to determine which path is best for their group.

There are many reasons why groups decied investing this power in the GM is a good idea. They have been listed to you before, but if you didn't listen to them then, I doubt you are any more inclined to start now. Clearly though, whatever the groups reasons, if they decied to so, and a enjoyable game results from it, then clearly they have made the right decision for themeselves, whatever you feeling on the subject may be, and whatever there reasons for deciding it might be. And I, and many others have testified that indeed, this is indeed the case for our groups. If you think I am wrong in this matter, then you have the unique opportunity to judge for yourself. [shameless plug] As you may know, I have recordings of a number of my sessions avaiable online at my website, whose link is below in my signature. [/shameless plug] Feel free to listen to them and determine for yourself if we are having fun or not.

Except they don't. I don't have time to listen to your podcasts, but I assume you're the GM for the sessions? What happens if every player unanimously disagrees with a ruling you make? Do you try to force it through anyway, or do you bow to the will of the group? Granted, your players probably respect you, and so aren't likely to openly rebel in the middle of a session. But they might come up to you quietly and say: "I know you meant well, but that call was bogus."

You have respect, but you don't actually have the authority to back up any of your pronouncements. You can throw down a "My way or the highway" pronouncement, but is that likely to get you anywhere? Especially when you're wrong? Authority implies the ability to back up a declaration with a consequence. What consequences can you apply, as a GM, that wouldn't damage your relationship with the group?

Again you disregard the difference between player (singular) and players (plural). The two are not the same. When you make your statements you use phrases like "any other member" indicating a singular member of the group. But when you present potential counter example you always present them in plural. Ignoring the fact that obviously one player (singular) is not the same as all the players (plural). You will note that every example I provide I indicate that it is the GM's authority vrs that of a player (singular), and not that of the GMs authority vs that of the entire group (plural).

But in this specific (contrived) situation what would I do? The very fact that they would ask me indicates that the power (authority) rests in my hands. My exact response would of course differ based upon the exact situation, but to be blunt it would be my decision. The players and I have decided the system that suits us best is not a democracy, but a dictatorship. Virtually all the power is invested in me. Many other groups in fact make the same decision. There are cases where I would give in to there request (and maybe let an important NPC who I would rather live die), and there are cases where I would not give in (we all want panther cannons, 1,000,000 nuyen, and 100 karma). In either case, because I am a benevolent dictator, and because my group trusts and respects me, and because this is who we have decided to do it, to vest this athority in me, they will go along. Its key to understanding that even if I accept their input, it is still my decision, and both groups understand this. The king accepts advice from his subjects, but it is still he who reins. Does this imply the 'papa knows best' attitude which you despise? Possibly. But for my group this is the system that suits us best.

Other groups may make different trade-offs where the GMs feelings vrs that of the group (plura) or any one player (singular) are concerned. And every group has the right to decide exactly where that authority should lie. But your universal statement that in all groups (or in even most groups) a player's (singular) authority is equal to that of the GM is false.

What would you do then, if present with such a group that decide vesting all or most of the authority in the hands of a GM? Leave? Or bow to the will of the group when it comes to choosing a system of governance for itself? In either case realize that while you should make the right decision for you, the group should also make the right decision for itself. Which may differ from yours. To imply different is to have your own 'papa knows best' towards the group. But this one without their explicit consent.



At some point I hope you will learn that when you make statements about the realities of a group, without knowing the particulars, you will inevitably be wrong. As you are in this case. As I said above, the group has (for a number of reasons) decided that investing authority, even to the level of 'my way or the highway' is what is best for us. But of course to put it in such extreme terms is unfair to me and my group. As our level of respect for one another is high enough that this level of authority can rest in my hands without a hypothetical 'my way or the highway' situation ever coming up.

---

In general I'm not sure why you keep stumbling on this very simple point. Yes, much like any system of government, the GM's right to rule comes from the consent of the governed. And, like any other government if the governed all decide to change the system of government, they have the right to do so. But until and unless they do so, power resides within the hands those they have decided give it to. Be it GM or a congressman. As I said before, the power does stem from the people. But using this as an reason to say that this authority does not exist is just foolish. It is as if you said that Congress doesn't have the authority to pass laws, after all we could all get together and change that! It's true, but not very meaningful in this context.

Or to use another analogy. A referee has authority to make calls and rulings in games. This authority stems from the fact that the players (plural) have decided to grant him this authority, and abide by his call. They could change their minds about this, and play without a ref, or choose a new one. But unless and until they do so, that authority certainly exists. And his feelings about how a call should be made are more important than that of any one player (singular) and possibly even the entire group as a whole (plural).

To brake it down real simple like. Yes, in many groups the GM has more authority than any one player (singular). He may even has more authority than the whole group (plural) unless and until the group decides to change this. This means that in situations where he has this authority (NPCs, game rulings, ect) his feelings about certain game matters are more important then that of any player (singular) or potentially the whole group, if they continue to consent. The question of weather this means he is valued as a more important member is of course, largely meaningless.

Interesting choice of words there...
...Would changing the adjudicator of the rules from GM to Ref make things easier for people ??

A GM is seen as someone in control, whose word is law...
...Wheras a Ref is seen as someone who adjudicates discussion and disputes from an objective set of guidelines.


Personally, my Players rarely bother to learn more than the basic rules, and leave everything else upto me...
...Using discussion to determine fine detail.

But at the end of the day, when a decision has to be made - it's me that decides, and my Players trust me to make one that works best for the game...
...Because at the end of the day, someone has to make a decision [just like in real life].

The problem and the difference lay in one factor: words are indicative of mindset. It's the reason that they hold such importance.

Especially over the net the only way that anyone CAN know what you mean is by your choice in word usage. When you talk about "power", when you use the term "Master", you are being very blatant about what is important to your mindset in how you see your job as GM. The contraction there makes the term more generic, less combative. In doesn't wave a dick in anyone else's face the way the term Master does, when used in the connection of running a process, be it a game or something else. When talking about why the GM needs power, instead of respect or trust, demonstrates very clearly that it IS about the relative dick size and not about trying to make sure everyone is having as much fun as possible.

Personally, just personally, I've always liked the old CoC term "Keeper" for the job of GM, or simply using the non-pejorative contraction, GM. Keeper is especially useful because it is so honest. The Keeper of records and situations is a big part of the primary focus of the job. Storyteller works well too, except that it's somewhat dismissive of the input of the Players, as they are the Storytellers too. I'll most often use the term GM here as it is the common nomenclature in this game.

But instead of wasting more time concentrated just on a single word, what is being said, I think, by Cain, who will correct me if I'm wrong, and certainly what I am saying is simply that the old method where the DM/GM/Whatever "runs things" and the Players are even marginally less important to the process than the DM/GMWhatever is far from necessary.

We, or at least I, but I sense the same idea from Cain, are NOT in any way saying that the manner in which we do things is the "correct" one, but rather that it is one that has been tried and found after long experience to be the smoothest manner in which to conduct the process of Gaming. Both of us, I would guess, certainly it is the case in my more than three decades of experience in gaming, have been Game Masters in the past and have seen MANY others doing the job as well and have found a common thread and common fault with those situations; everyone of them in my case, that do NOT happen in co-operative games.

*Rules lawyers do NOT EXIST in cooperative games. They can't. There isn't a way in which to be one.
**People trying to break the system doesn't happen either. Since they are ALL responsible for how things work, they try to make them work, not break them. instead people work to make the rules set tighter and more usable.
***No one can ever claim they are left out of the process. Period. It can't happen if YOU are primarily responsible for the outcome yourself. Each person gets as much out of it as they themselves put in to it. There is no trying to figure out how to get person A involved because they are involving themselves as much or as little as THEY want to be.
****Games don't break up because Player A kills Player B's character and bad feelings ensue. There is still allot of interaction between characters, sometimes even one PC killing another PC, but NEVER do you get bad feelings out of it in a cooperative game.
*****There is basically NEVER a derth of ideas and concepts for the game. With the creativity and imagination of several people involved it's as likely as sun going nova tomorrow that there won't be slews of game setting or scenario ideas sitting around waiting their turn to be used.
******There is no arguing in session about rules calls. If a ruling doesn't make sense to you at the time, you note it and after the session there is a discussion between the game members as a whole and things get worked out.

All of this is possible through simple mutual respect and trust. The GM isn't out to kill your characters and the Players aren't out to screw the system because there simply isn't ANY room for it. Within this concept you don't have to impose ANYTHING on your Players, they are working towards the same ends as you are.

This simply can not be said for the far more common "the GM is boss" games. No matter how good the GM is, no matter how mature the Players are, something is going to be further out of whack than in cooperative games because there is simply much less communication and NO ONE is always able to discern what is needed for every given situation without good lines of communication.

So, it is not "the correct" way to do things, but it may well be "the more correct" way to do things when it alleviates the problems that crop up in other situations without creating any new ones of it's own, thus being VASTLY more efficient.

All any of this requires is a willingness to do it and a modicum of maturity. Hell, my daughter Sarafina has been doing this since she was 13 without difficulty. Age isn't a factor, simply maturity and willingness.


Isshia

Synner667 raises a good point, inasmuch as the GM is less a dictator than an arbitrator. But even then, he's not necessarily the rules arbitrator, as Cantankerous points out.

Max, I noticed that in your great big long post, you side-stepped the question I posed to you. If your entire group disagreed with a call you made, what would you do? Or if one player disagreed, but brought up his whole challenge to the group for decision? How would you respond?

The point being made here is that no gaming group is a sole dictatorship, because other players have real authority, while the GM only has influence. They guy who's home you're playing in? He gets to decide when game starts and ends, and can back that up with a consequence. The guy who buys food for the group? He decides what you get, and if you don't like it, you go without. There is, of course, plenty of understanding amongst friends that happens, but what authority does the GM actually have that cannot be overridden?

People's tastes differ a lot. I disagree with the idea that all-cooperative games are inherently better than games where the GM decides all. For many games, a clear vision, and unilateral handling of the rules and setting may be superiour to some "designed by commitee" game. For many games, cooperation may work better.

In reality, neither way is pure. In cooperative-decision making, there'll be a lot of "political" influences - often never said out loud, but implied. "I'll be ok with you playing a pixie if I get to play my nosferatu" "Ok, I will be for Seattle as a setting, if it means I can play a follower of the path from Tir Tairngire" "I like Bob, so I'll let his character have X and Y in my game". "Joe likes plaiyng elves, so I'll let him play an elf, as long as he tones the racism down" and so on.

And in the end run the player can always vote with their feet. In my opinion any game that ever gets that far has VERY serious problems.


Isshia

You can't force the GM to play a game he does not like. And if faced with the choice of a rules call not going their way, or not playing a game at all, most players will give in - as long as the game is fun for them, overall.

And that's it, ultimately: As long as the game is fun, the GM has all the authority he needs.

Why is a game that is cooperative ANY less likely to have a clear vision? The only difference will be that it is the consensus vision. Why is that ANY less inherently clear than a unilateral one?

Have you ever had ANY of the following in your games?

*Rules lawyers do NOT EXIST in cooperative games. They can't. There isn't a way in which to be one.
**People trying to break the system doesn't happen either. Since they are ALL responsible for how things work, they try to make them work, not break them. instead people work to make the rules set tighter and more usable.
***No one can ever claim they are left out of the process. Period. It can't happen if YOU are primarily responsible for the outcome yourself. Each person gets as much out of it as they themselves put in to it. There is no trying to figure out how to get person A involved because they are involving themselves as much or as little as THEY want to be.
****Games don't break up because Player A kills Player B's character and bad feelings ensue. There is still allot of interaction between characters, sometimes even one PC killing another PC, but NEVER do you get bad feelings out of it in a cooperative game.
*****There is basically NEVER a derth of ideas and concepts for the game. With the creativity and imagination of several people involved it's as likely as sun going nova tomorrow that there won't be slews of game setting or scenario ideas sitting around waiting their turn to be used.
******There is no arguing in session about rules calls. If a ruling doesn't make sense to you at the time, you note it and after the session there is a discussion between the game members as a whole and things get worked out.

Since we went cooperative we haven't. Not at all. no rules lawyers, no twinks, no whining, no one feeling left out, no bad feelings between Players among each other or with the GM, no dearth of ideas AT ALL and most importantly, no in game arguments. We've had all of the above with unilateral games. I would challenge you to find a single cooperative game where they had these problems. I've yet to see one person who has played for a significant length of time who has not had at least some of the problems discussed in unilateral games...and I've gamed with hundreds of different people directly and talked with hundreds more about gaming ideology at Cons.


Isshia


Edit: What do we mean by better?

Yeah, the new car gets triple the gas mileage, is twice as crash resistant, has better handling and a more responsive suspension is less pollutant and costs half as much to maintain, but you're right, it's not green. So the green one is obviously just as good.

Better=More fun for everyone involved.

You should not mistake having a good group for having a perfect system.

I know enough about humans and interaction to realize that a cooperative game is by no means a guarantee for being perfect. You can have your rules lawyer in it, you can have the populists, the politicians, and a lot of issues. Just because offically, all have input does not mean everyone's input or influence is equal, or even fair. You just need a couple players in the group with an agenda, and you can sideline others.

And in some cases, the commitee vision is worse than any unilateral vision of a GM. If some people want to play a LotR campaign, and others an amoral mercenary campaign, with the token "Drizzt with another hat" fan, you can end up with a blander, more generic game where no one is truly happy, and all are equally unhappy. Tacking too much onto a campaign often has that result.

Also, I think anyone knows that not everyone is equally creative or capable - or has the time needed. Some people simply can't involve themselves as much as they want, and are happier if they are involved by others.

Finally, cooperative game or not - bad feelings can happen over anything.

I really think you are mistaking your players personal strengths for strengths of the system.

That is what I was thinking about that list, too.

- Cooperative decisions on rules come with discussion rights for any rules lawyer.
- Rules lawyers will not suddenly care about "balance", just because they are told they do.
- Cooperative or not, killing a PC without the consent of the player can -and will- generate bad feelings. No difference between styles.
- I refuse the suggestion that a GM with authority does automatically not accept the players input on campaign direction. If you want to run a successful game, you need to listen to your players wishes.
- The last point is dead-on. While the GM is running the game, the GM calls the rules. Established rules and rules readings of the group are to be used for that ("Established" does not have a strong definition in this context.).

I will give you that the more responsibility is given to the GM, the larger the demands on the GMs social abilities get. I will also give you that some players are so inclined to fight any authority figure, that removing their primary target is the easiest solution.

Quite an interesting discussion...

The GM is the most "important" cog in the wheel, simply for the fact that if s/he is not there, the game is cancelled or rescheduled. Not so for the player and in fact, all of the games I have been a part of within the last three years, with five players and one GM, the rule has been if one player is missing, we automatically still play. If two players are missing, its a group decision and whether the GM had one of those players as integral for the session. If three players are missing, then we automatically cancel the game. So, from an attendance standpoint, yeah the GM is the most important.

Now this cooperative gaming that seems to be talked about a lot above...well, to me, seems 100% based on the makeup of the group, not the system, as someone already mentioned. I know that I can't start a new campaign within my group and state that its going to be cooperative...I'd get a couple of blank stares and maybe one person that would be interested in such a format. While I can see where such a group would have minimal issues that a standard gaming group has, you are basically needing a handful of GMs that are all wanting to play and quasi-GM each session and spend time outside of the session creating content.

Again...not all that common. I've run games where I gave bonus karma for simply having a player compose an in-character log on my website messageboard. I think two players even attempted it. After session two, only one and he only did it for about 5 or 6 sessions (the game ended after about 40 sessions). So to think that those players, who couldn't muster up the time or effort to write a short in-character log of the prior session would be willing to cooperatively create a campaign...I'm just very skeptical that's going to happen very often.

As for respecting the GM...at least from a game composed of working adults that have all been playing for at least a decade, there's simply an underlying understanding that the GM is running the game and without him, someone else would have to step up. Our current GM is not completely respected by our current players, but he is a friend and we know he is doing his best to run his game. I was running the last campaign and I feel like I had more of my players respect than he did, but because I let the players lead the campaign through their actions and desires, it kinda fizzled prematurely. They got kinda bored because instead of infusing the game with content and direction I came up with, I kinda let them go down several of their own paths.

Which I guess brings me to a point...respect, responsibility and importance aside, I believe a good game is one that the GM has a solid guiding hand. There is a story being told and interacted with by the players. The GM can certainly weave in player content from time to time, but keeping the overall story contiguous and enjoyable, which at times will highlight one player over another...well, its just going to happen a lot more often with a single controlling, good-natured GM than it is with 6 quasi-GMs putting their fingers in the pot. And frankly, the only reason I say that is because I don't think you will find 6 quasi-GMs in the same group very often...

When all is said an done, everyone should have access to the rules. The GM has to interpret those rules and handle any disagreements. For me, if a dispute comes up, I'll run it "my way" for the duration of the session and then I'll spend time outside of the game to figure out what makes the most sense. My group knows that if we do something "wrong" that it still is just a game that can be corrected in the next session. Even if everyone in the group disagrees with my interpretation, in order to keep the game moving, unless its really just something I misunderstood, then I'll stick by my guns and just go, letting everyone know that I'll look at what I ruled by next session and get things straightened out.

First, Fuchs, this is not a one group thing. In my personal experience it has worked this way with no less than seventeen different groups. I am the only constant from that run. Just me, alone. Nor am I the only person doing this. Quite allot of people do it, more than once, with more than one group, and the outcome is constant.

This includes taking in guys who were notorious rules lawyers, notorious twinks and notorious whiners, who were not any of those things any longer after a few sessions of Cooperative Gaming. Once a Rules Lawyer learns that he can't argue with anyone, the arguing stops. He DOES have his input into the rules decisions and then, in the vote, just as the GM does, not more or less.





Let's hit this one by one, shall we.

The rules are settled not by any single person but the group as a whole. No matter how much one person wants to argue a point, when it's voted down that is it. Whether it be the GM or the Rules Lawyer, the vote ends it. The discussion does not take place during the game. Other than that, see the above. When there is no one to argue with, there is no argument.

No one said that GMs who don't run cooperative games can't listen. No one suggested that at all. What is suggested is that it is AUTOMATICALLY the case in a cooperative game and is far from that in a non-cooperative one.

As for bad feelings, they develope almost solely from lack of communication. If Cooperation is the ideal being worked towards, then everyone is stating their feelings, or if not, they have no recourse to bitch.

All of things I talked about are things we have all seen OFTEN as long time gamers, neh? They have not shown up at all in any of the thirty plus different campaigns with at least seventeen (I might be missing some, but I can recall seventeen different groups in the last fifteen years pretty clearly) different groups, one a group of eight including three brand new Gamers who had never gamed before, with three of those campaigns being 80+ sessions in length. In all I'd estimate that we are talking about 700 plus actual game sessions with NONE of the problems we've had every time we tried Unilateral Games with many of the same people involved.

In the middle of a loooooong campaign (Forgotten Realms 2nd edition D&D) that ran for over a decade and accounts for at least two hundred of those seven hundred plus sessions I was talking about (the campaign itself was almost 600 total sessions long overall in first Unilateral and then Cooperative modes) we made the switch. At the time (after 400 + sessions) it was growing stale, everybody had been there and done that time and again, there were, at the time of the change over, two rules lawyers and two power gamer twinks extraordinaire, another person who whined constantly and yet another who felt disenfranchised and left out. there was constant in character fighting that almost invariably spilled over in to shouting matches and twice would have escalated into fights if he hadn't stopped the sessions went down to the local pub and calmed down with Mssrs Busch and Budweiser. Yet everyone loved the game as a whole. so they said.

I got tired of it and after discussing it with everyone after a near fist fight between two long time friends we came up with our present structure. And after about six sessions things improved by orders of magnitude. The game got such a shot in the arm that it turned around and lasted another four years. The arguing stopped COMPLETELY, the other side effects died and the people who were the type to be only marginally involved BLOSSOMED before our eyes. That whole list of problems evaporated.

And came back again when other people ran games with the same Players that weren't done by the Cooperative Game method.

When I started experimenting with other systems I had waiting lines to get into the games I was GMing because they were cooperative. I was doing short three to ten session try outs of other systems because I likes me some variety. And even with systems no one knew well, even in situations where even I didn't know the systems well, it all worked o well that other people in our area started copying our methods ... and came up with the same results. Arguments stopped, bad feelings were a fleeting thing at best and no one could legitimately complain about being left out.

No one forces anyone to be creative in Cooperative Games. The whole idea is simply responsibility. You can't complain about something YOU are doing yourself. If you don't contribute ideas and story lines, you don't have any room to complain about the "spot light" time others get. Simple maturity and responsibility. That is ALL that it takes.

It is anything but personal strengths unless our entire region was the seeding ground for the greatest Players in Gaming. the credit goes not to individuals here, but to the system. Some things just work better than others.


Isshia

As I said, Ishia - just because you vote doesn't make it "better". It just means some people will have an easier time sidelining others if they so desire. Majority rules suck for the minority, without checks and balances.

People need to quit being hung up on titles. The Shadowrun usage of the term Game Master is an homage to the old D&D Dungeon Master. And since "Shadow Master" sounds a little dorky...

But seriously, the "master" aspect is equal to storyteller, referee, game controller, guide, etc. Master is just a word and a word does not summarize or reflect the reality.

I disagree strongly. The title you use acts subconsciously on the way you think and act. This is why racial slur names cause the damage they do... they promote a mindset of superiority/inferiority. When Master is used to represent authority it promotes a certain mindset, subconsciously, which causes reactions not only in the person with the title, but again, subconsciously, in the people he/she interacts with.

As an aside, Shadow Master sounds infinitely less dorky than Dungeon Master with the S&M connotations that IT carries.


Isshia

ONLY when the majority is acting irresponsibly. When the stated goal is cooperation and you have mature people:

it

simply

doesn't

happen.


Inherently a group decision is more likely to fit the group than a unilateral one.

Nothing is a golden bullet. But again, if it gets thrice the mileage, is safer, responds more concisely, takes less maintenance and is less expensive, but just isn't green, then doesn't the one that out performs the other one make more sense? Even if you really like green?


Isshia

As an aside, Japanese scientists did a study where they froze water while saying negative words to it, and the crystals formed were very chaotic and, well, ugly. They then refroze the water saying nice, positive words to it and the crystals were very orderly and beautiful.

A Chinese classroom took two containers of rice and every morning said "You fool" to one and "Thank you" to the other. After a few weeks, the rice they said "you fool" to was turned completely black, whereas the "thank you" rice was still fresh.

In Sunday School, a person I know took two apples and wrote positive words on a piece of paper and taped it to one apple, and attached negative words to the other apple. The "Posi-Apple" stayed nice and fresh for more than 7 weeks, whereas the "Nega-Apple" rotted after 3.

Words are powerful things; choose them carefully. "And God said 'Let there be Light,' and there was light..."

I created a summary of the more common mistakes mentioned earlier in the thread.

The new thread can be found here at - Common Mistakes That Players Make

Great discussion everyone.

Wasn't just an apple less ripe than the other? Did you have control groups with apples with no words attached to them? Did you eliminate all confounding variables? Did you (or anyone else) try it again to see if you were able to get the same results with the same protocol?
It's not the first time I hear things like that, but I've never seen any serious scientific experiment confirm these theories. Maybe a social experiment should be done at the same time on the experimenters.

Then you have no issues. Cooperation has nothing to do with rules authority. Personal authority will, after a series of sessions that were fun, go to the GM either way. It got so strong in our group that one session can have rules applied differently than the other, depending on the GM of the given day. If I trust a friend to run a good game for me, I can sure as hell follow up on his rules calls. It is a matter of respect, if need be on effort alone.


@Blade: You are pretty good at taking stuff seriously, too. (Don´t mind if you don´t remember what exchange I´m referring to. )

Awesome. Once the pseudoscience comes out, I'm done.

That's my German side, I guess. (don't mind if that's not the exchange you're referring to )

That one.

Can't you just have faith that people aren't all liars and con-artists?

Even if the hypothesis would prove to be true, the criticism of scientific method would still be true, too.

I'm still kinda hung up on this method of gaming and maybe its just that I am not seeing it function. Some individual still has to take all of these group ideas and present them to the players. Some of them get discarded and some of them are highlighted...that's just human nature.

I'm curious as to how all of these cooperative gaming ideas get incorporated into a session, assuming you are not playing wushu or such, but a "standard" role-playing game. Does someone just blurt out that such and such is this way or that, or is there a planning session where everyone discusses what adventure is going to be run and how each scenario is going to occur?

At some point, someone is "running" the game, right?

I just don't see how everyone can "just know" the same rule interpretation every single time, in 17+ gaming groups over 30 years. In my book, once someone brings up a specific rule, then you have Rules Lawyering, but yet you say that it never happens in cooperative gaming...

I just having a hard time visualizing what a session would feel like at this cooperative gaming table...

And the #1 most common mistake less-skilled roleplayers make when playing a roleplaying game?

Allowing elitist Roleplaying Pros to tell them that they are having badwrongfun, and are thus less "skilled", and then proceed to dictate to them the "One True Way"...

Dungeon Master has strong and specific SM connotations too.

Words are neutral. Positive or negative spin are placed on them by people (other than deliberate insults or slurs) and that is what causes emotional reactions. A "master" isn't any more or less of an authority figure than a referee or storyteller when taken into an RPG context. It's someone who carries a certain set of skills.

I have clients who refuse to allow certain colors in the websites I build for them. When I probe and ask why, it's due to a negative experience that's associated with said color earlier in life. It's not the color's fault, it's the client's perception of it. That's hardly an objective or reasonable way to run a re-branding campaign especially if said color fits the message perfectly. Likewise it's hardly an objective view of the word master to assume it always means "the boss" or "the guy with the whip."

Ewwwwwwwwww... Then again Dungeon Masters in orange sweaters are known for placing people in a dreadfully, precarious positions.

EDIT

I'm sorry you feel that way. My intention is to help everyone, including myself, to be a better roleplayer. If you had a negative point in particular that you wanted to make, feel free to let me know either here or at my blog. I'd be happy to address it with you.

Funny, ain't it? That stuff is all subjective, for sure. But while I agree 100% with what you are saying, its important for everyone to be aware of those types of things. I mean, I have learned early on that many DSFers have a negative perception of DnD and therefore I always replace DM with the more neutral GM, even if I was talking about some experience specific to DnD.

I think the same thing has to be done at each table. An observant person will be able to tell how Joe the Min Maxer is going to react if you drop some sweet gear into the game, whereas Bill the Roleplay Extraordinaire will be super giddy if you drop him the same statistical gear as what he has, just that is looks cool...

Okay, I wandered off on that tangent. As to using a term like "master", those of us that don't put a certain connotation on the word will not read into someone else using it. Just chalk it up to not actually knowing the person posting here and trying to use black and white logic and nit-pick word usage instead of just understanding what the poster is trying to say...

I think the point he was trying to make is quite clear.

The original post should have included this warning.

*shrug*

I had thought that what I previously typed WAS the negative point. The very wording of the title of this thread smacks of an elitist attitude to me. This is unfortunately one of the main things I dislike about quite a lot of the hobbyists I share my passion with.

All of the arguments posted here as to what "mistakes less-skilled roleplayers make" are personal gaming style preferences, not really mistakes nor truly qualified assesments of a "skill level" in said players.

The Cooperative Game runs pretty much like the traditional ones with a few important differences.

First, when setting up a campaign overall time is spent developing tone and scale as a group, instead of the Unilateral method of the GM doing it alone ahead of time and hoping that it's a decent fit for the Players. With the Cooperative method you don't have to hope it fits, you know that it's the best compromise of what everyone wants. Yes, this requires flexibility on the part of the GM because once the broad strokes are done, he is still the details man. At least mostly.

-- You can give certain Players certain parts of the world to detail develop. No one HAS TO do this, but I've seldom found less than half the Players in a group who don't do it once they've seen how much it adds to a game. it can be in as much or as little detail as the individual wants and has time for.
-- Many (maybe most) groups have one or two Players who LOVE making characters. Great, have them go crazy on it. Get copies of them, tweak the attributes, skills and backgrounds a bit and re-add them to the mix as NPCs. Such Players can save the GM dozens of hours in the course of even a shortish campaign and still the game has a plethora of well thought out and developed characters to give depth and breadth to the game world.

As a part of this too is the discussion about what, in a rough manner, the ideal for the campaign will be. Is the idea to be "traditional Runners" who are contractual mercs in essence, or are they going to be involved in a cause or are they going to simply "grow" generically dependent upon environmental factors like real people do, or what have you? How nasty and vile do you want the baddies to be? Is it going to be gruesome, or edgy, or spooky or Pink Mohawks or does the group want an agglomeration of all of the above?

Second is rules and house rules development. This also goes to how specific types of situations get handled. Do you want free form decking or detail decking? (Both are a 3rd edition thing that is handled very differently in 4e.) How much or how little is magic going to be stressed? How about racism? Even aside from the stresses placed upon it, how accepting of magic and/or meta-humanity is humanity? These questions are rules related more than others of their sort in Shadowrun as there are game mechanics to be figured in and adjusted. Any aspect of how the game mechanically functions is discussed before the campaign itself starts, but it doesn't end there.

-- If a situation comes up in game that would usually result in an argument in a Unilateral Game it is set aside and discussed after the individual game session is over. The creative minds and inputs of everyone involved are used and a solution is found either by retention of the existing rule in Toto or by a consensus modification. Essentially it is the Unilateral GM thing but automatically arrived at by consensus. This by itself short cuts almost all rules arguments.

Third involves the Players more than the GM (which is also why I do yes, still have an issue with the idea that a DM automatically develops more "power" over time than the Players) and also handles a depth of background that few groups ever see otherwise. The Players handle their downtime, detail it as much or as little as they like, within the constraints of the system and the time they have. So, you can't simply assign yourself six new contacts or a degree in Meta-Botany, for instance, but you can and do set up the whos whys and wherefores and simply submit them.

-- For instance, Jay spends the three weeks of downtime between the end of the last run and the beginning of one of the ad hoc "day to day living situations" by spending allot of time with a couple of Boeing Corp Bodyguards he met during the last run. Initially they are listed afterwords as "casuals" (casual contacts which are like rating one contacts but less reliable and they'll want significantly more for their assistance than actual contacts) but who fall by the wayside when the relationship isn't vigorously maintained.
-- During the same period Shnorky is working for the ORC (and thus strengthening his ties to it) continuing to work on his Masters thesis in Comparitive Meta-Botanical Psycho-Therapeutic Pharmaceutical Design.
-- And Anna is simply keeping up with the SOTA line for Decking and Cyber-systems interfacing,
-- While Thadeus is working on self initiating.

Plus any on going inter-personal interactions and whatever else comes to mind, in as much or little detail as desired by the person. Usually in my experience it turns out to be allot of detail and allot of diceless role playing between the Players directly. Then they simply fill me in on what they were doing and what they see as the likeliest outcomes.


All of the above lets the GM very much off the hook for "entertaining the players" and provides SLEWS of scenario and side stroy ideas to be explored. It gets the Players VERY proactively involved in the games, gets them to take responsibility for the sessions smoothness and helps to assure that everyone both understands the rules, the house rules and how they interact with their specific characters. It also promotes deep RP and uses the hard core RPers abilities to help pull the more passive Players out of their shells a bit all without the direct need for GM input.

The second part is what prevents rules lawyering. There is no manner in which to lawyer things when you are as much judge as lawyer. When your voice is as strong in how things will work as the GMs is there is just nothing to "push against" and if the new rule you've proposed and gotten passed fails miserably because there was hidden twinkiness in it, it gets remembered and your ideas catch much closer scrutiny in the future as well as getting changed right away. Do this often enough and the group as a whole may despair of you and not invite you back. Group decisions for a group are a self regulating thing. It is only in Unilateral situations where you can really bitch about a ruling being unfair, because in the Cooperative Game it was YOU who helped design the rule.


This is a very quick thumb nail over view of some of the primary differences and why they work better. It barely scratches the surface of the surface, but it shows a direction.



Isshia



As an aside: No one is saying this is the only way, or that other ways are "badwrongfun", but rather that the traditional "it's my world and welcome to it" version of things doesn't have to be the way either and that other methods not only work, but have inherent strengths. Why running around in the gas guzzling old '76 Caddy Fleetwood with the broken AC and the bad breaks is "badwrongfun" if you like it, I don't get. I also don't get why it is important to say that this is just as efficient the '08 Mercedes E320 either, but maybe that's just me.

These are all great methods of involving a player in the game and their character. I've enjoyed using them for years, with mostly positive results. I find myself agreeing with most everything you've said here.

I strongly disagree with the mindset that there are any players that are making "mistakes" or any "less skilled" than any others in choosing, whatever it may be, their personally preferred play style, though.

Then you didn't read what I wrote very carefully, as I feel the pargraph below answers your question as specifically as such a wide ranging hypothetical situations could be:



For your additional inquiry, what if a single player puts a challenge not to me, but to the whole group. The answer is simple. They would ultimately do as I say as this is how we have agreed to do things. It is not as if I do not listen to their input, but they have appointed me to use my best judgment to arbitrate these manners, even when it goes against there wishes. Its not some crazy power-mad dick waving contest on my part, but an arrangement we have agreed upon for the good of the game.


What authority does anyone have that cannot ultimately be overridden by someone? You have some strange notion that authority has to be unequivocally absolute to be authority. This is not so. In a game a GM can have as much or as little authority as the group feels is appropriate to invest in him. As I have repeatedly stated, yes, of course this power comes from the members of the group who agree to submit to his rule. And yes, the members of this group could change this authority if they desire. But none of this changes the fact that this power exists, and is often times placed in the GM's hands.


We are in complete agreement here. There may be many right ways to have fun playing a RPG. And you make a number of good arguements why a coperative style of game may be more fun for some groups. But then you go and say this...


You have to realise that there is no objective way to measure which style is better, as you might could do with the cars in your example. What style of game produces the most 'fun' game is a subjective question, and will differ from group to group. Previously I have elaborated on some of the reasons of why a group might choose a more traditional style of game. And reasons why a coperative style of game might not be for them. But frankly the reasons are largely irrelevant. What matters is results. And if their style produces a fun game for them, and yours does not, then theirs is the correct style for them, and whatever your feelings. And there is ample testimony that this is indeed the case.

If you've sat down and agreed that this is a GM-dominated game, then you've voted on it, which makes it more of a cooperative game from the start. If it is a penis-waving contest, then you don't bother asking, you just take it.


I did. That runaway paragraph doesn't answer anything as much as say: "I don't know, it all depends". If the players all unanimously said: "We're sick of this power level, we want to increase it substantially", you'd say "Yes, unless you want panther cannons and an extra hundred karma." That's the gist of what you seem to be saying, and it doesn't make any sense to me either.


You're beginning to see my point! The GM does not require any authority to have a fun game. In fact, I daresay that the better you are as a GM, the less authority you need. As you said, the group decides as a whole exactly how much authority the GM gets. And in actuality, it's usually exactly the same as everyone else at the table. They might get a few ceremonial perks, but being the GM doesn't mean you get to decide what kind of pizza to order.

Most games are a lot more cooperative than most people realize. Discussing and voting on house rules before a begins is par for the course, nowadays. Writing character backgrounds on your own, instead of under the GM's eye or by the GM, is more-or-less expected. All these are elements of a cooperative game, and all of the are commonplace in "traditional" games.